Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Home Ownership Schemes

Mr. Blackburn: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities are now operating low-cost home ownership schemes.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. John Stanley): Inquiries indicate that some 165 local authorities currently have low-cost home ownership schemes.

Mr. Blackburn: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that answer. However, will he give wide publicity to the schemes, particularly in view of reports in the press about Lambeth council and the fact that there are 2,000 applications in Wolverhampton council that have not yet received attention from that authority?

Mr. Stanley: I assure my hon. Friend that we are giving extensive publicity to low-cost homeownership opportunities. We are making arrangements to publish written infomation about it and we are also making a film about the low-cost opportunities available to all local authorities.
I read with great concern reports in the press today about industrial action to impound right-to-buy claim forms, alleged to have been carried out by NALGO officials in Lambeth. It has not been possible this morning to establish the precise facts with the council, but if the reports are correct that action would represent a most serious abuse. The Government expect Lambeth council to take the necessary steps to recover possession of the right-to-buy documents concerned and to fulfil its obligations to process without delay the right-to-buy applications that it has received.

Mr. Alton: Is the Minister not ashamed of the fact that in a written reply two days ago he had to admit that in his constituency and in that represented by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State not one house had been sold by the end of December under the new right-to-buy proposals?

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Member will be aware that the right-to-buy took effect only on 3 October. I assure him that the record of district councils such as South Oxfordshire and Tonbridge and Mailing in giving council tenants the right to buy is better than that of most Labour, and some Liberal, authorities.

Mr. William Shelton: Is my hon. Friend aware that many people in Lambeth wish to buy their council homes and that 300 to 400 letters are being held up? Does he agree that that is scandalous, and that something must be done as soon as possible?

Mr. Stanley: I agree with my hon. Friend. As he will be aware, there are later questions on the Order Paper about the implementation of the right to buy. I shall come to those questions and refer to Lambeth again shortly.

Sunday Football

Mr. John Carlisle: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what his policy towards the Football League proposal to stage matches on a Sunday.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Hector Monro): The decision taken by the Football League is not one in which I have any standing. The question of policy concerning sporting events on a Sunday is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

Mr. Carlisle: Does my hon. Friend agree that the staging of matches on Sunday will bring extra revenue to the football clubs and will be of benefit to the players? Does he agree also that it will result in a certain amount of nuisance for the residents around the grounds and extra work for the police? Will he make representations to the Football League and suggest that these games should be the exception rather than the rule, so that we do not see a wholesale switching of games from Saturday to Sunday?

Mr. Monro: I note what my hon. Friend says. The games are relatively few at the moment. They are confined to a maximum of 6. those that have taken place in Divisions III and IV have been reasonably successful. I agree with my hon. Friend that the Football League should consider carefully the effect on the local environment and on the work load of the police, and the problem of public transport. However, those difficulties can be resolved.

Mr. Marks: This is not just a matter for the Football Association and the Football League. There is here a social problem. Does the Minister agree that it is not just a question of Division IV teams increasing their gates from 1,500 to 5,000? In some of the big cities, where the gates are 40,000 and 50,000, the grounds such as Maine Road in Manchester, are in the midst of hundreds of terraced houses, so that there are serious problems on the days on which the matches are played. Will the Minister urge the FA and the Football League to have discussions with local representatives and the people who live near the grounds before action is taken to play games on Sundays in those areas?

Mr. Monro: I accept what the hon. Member has said. He knows that so far there have been only Division III and IV matches. If there were Division I or II matches, and major games, there would be complications. I shall draw the attention of the Football Association and the Football League to the exchanges that have taken place in the House this afternoon.

Mr. Stokes: Does my hon. Friend agree that the best thing that people can do on Sunday is to go to church, and after they have done that they can engage in any lawful activity?

Mr. Monro: I support my hon. Friend's view. Of course, the wish of many people is to go to church and perhaps later go to a football match, but it is a new idea in this country to have these football matches on Sundays, and I think that we shall have to see how it settles down.

Mr. Denis Howell: Does the Minister agree that the law on Sunday entertainment is totally unfair as between one leisure activity and another? For example, music and the theatre are lawful, cricket, athletics, golf and Rugby League matches are tolerated, Association Football is experimenting, and racing wishes to come under starter's orders. In these circumstances, will the Minister take action to clear up the confusion and also to do what I believe most hon. Members wish to do, namely, relate the social implications to the sporting considerations, which also are involved?

Mr. Monro: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the interpretation of the Act is for the courts. It has always been considered in the House that a change in the law is a matter for Private Members' legislation, and on the last occasion when such a Bill came before the House in 1974 it did not get a Second Reading.

Vacant and Under-used Land

Mr. Iain Mills: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will take steps to ensure that all local authorities supplying information on the value of land held for publication in the register of vacant and under-used land do so on a comparable basis.

Mr. Bob Dunn: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek powers to compel local authorities to dispose of vacant and under-used land.

Mr. Bevan: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in the setting up of registers of vacant and derelict land; and what steps he plans when the registers are complete.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): The compilation of registers for 33 districts and London boroughs is under way, with the aim of publication in April. Public bodies are providing information according to standard criteria, under guidance from my Department. This does not include information on land values. I already have power to direct the disposal of land entered on a register, but I am hoping that the publication of site details, coupled with supporting work by the local authorities and business communities, will in most cases be enough to activate disposals.

Mr. Mills: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer, but will he try to ensure that no delay arises from either bureaucratic or cost reasons due to the overvaluing of land in public hands?

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he says, since I think that overvaluation can be a major stumbling block to the release of land. I shall certainly want to look at that, although it will be a matter in which the district valuer will have a crucial part to play.

Mr. Dunn: How much time will my right hon. Friend give to local authorities to make an effective start on the disposal of vacant land before he takes action?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will understand that it is not just a question of the local authorities. It is all

publicly owned land. I intend that the review of the registers should begin as soon as practicable, under the leadership of my Department, after the establishment of the registers in April.

Mr. Bevan: What further steps will my right hon. Friend take to ensure that the land referred to in his original reply is released for sale or is utilised as quickly as possible, without regard to historic or book values, so that high valuation prices do not inhibit its being dealt with?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will understand that, in the end, value is the figure which a particular piece of land can realise on the open market, and I shall have to bear that in mind. However, I assure him and the House that no time will be lost in scrutinising the lists of sites that appear on the registers. I have already begun the process of setting up a tripartite team in each area, consisting of a representative of the local authority, of my Department and of the private sector, to go through every site on those registers, and I shall want to be satisfied before I agree that such sites should remain in the public sector.

Mr. Spearing: In view of what the Secretary of State has said, will he confirm that the real purpose of these registers is to force local authorities to sell public land, whatever the future value of that land to the public might be? Why is he putting on statutory or semi-statutory tribunals representatives of private landed interests?

Mr. Heseltine: I think that in his quest to find some sinister motive the hon. Gentleman has grossly misrepresented the situation. The power to direct disposal lies in my hands, subject to the House, but I am entitled to look for advice on the widest possible basis, especially in these matters, if I may say so, following the precedent established by the Labour Secretary of State when he put forward the proposals for the urban programmes in the first place. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there are no sinister motives. I am just trying to get land released so that jobs and wealth can be created, which I should have thought was an objective that he would support.

Mr. Heddle: Since land is our most valuable natural resource, is it not criminal that local authorities, statutory undertakers and public corporations are sitting on land, and will my right hon. Friend therefore consider extending this register beyond the 33 local authorities to the country as a whole?

Mr. Heseltine: As this was a new method of achieving the disposal of land, I felt that it was right to proceed at a reasonable pace in the first instance and to take 33 registers as a means of finding out how the process worked. I am now considering requiring local government as a whole to declare its holdings of land in general. This would mean that there would be availability of knowledge, but that would not be the same as establishing a register in the first instance. The establishment of a register carries with it the power of compulsory disposal, and that would be the second step if I felt that the revelations coming from disclosure of land in the hands of local government justified such a register.

Mr. Graham: As the Secretary of State has taken power to order land on the register to be disposed of to private interests, will he now put his belief in competition to the test by instituting a register of privately owned land and then taking power to order that to be sold to public undertakings?

Mr. Heseltine: What the hon. Gentleman fails to understand is that the private sector cannot afford to hold land. There are already all the disciplines of the market place. If it was so apparent that devices of that sort were necessary, why did the Labour Party not introduce them?

Ordnance Survey

Mr. Freud: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has plans for the privatisation of the Ordnance Survey; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is now in a position to make a statement about the future of the Ordnance Survey.

The Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services (Mr. Tom King): I hope in the next few weeks to be able to make a statement on the recommendations of the Ordnance Survey review committee and on an immediate operating remit for the Ordnance Survey. I also have in hand an examination of the possibilities for giving the Ordnance Survey a more independent status. This last study will take rather longer to complete.

Mr. Freud: May we have an assurance that the Minister will not jettison 200 years of expertise for the sake of party political dogma, without a full debate in the House? Secondly, will he accept that the pressures on private businesses are too great for them to ensure the excellence of cartography maintained by the Ordnance Survey, an excellence that private business cannot emulate?

Mr. King: I have the highest respect for the quality of the work of the Ordnance Survey, and I believe that that respect is widely shared throughout the House. Nevertheless, I wonder whether hon. Members are aware that the Ordnance Survey will this year make a deficit of about £21 million. This is an expensive facility, and it would be irresponsible for any Government not to see how that facility, which the whole House prizes, might be organised in such a way that the call on the public Exchequer might be modified.

Mr. Bennett: In view of the considerable interest in Ordnance Survey matters in the House, will the Minister give a guarantee that he will make an oral statement about his proposals? Secondly, will he bear particularly in mind the recommendation of the Serpell committee that there should be major investment in the Ordnance Survey to ensure that its mapping techniques could be brought up to date, with particular regard to microprocessors and the like?

Mr. King: The first matter is not one for me, but for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. Clearly, however, we shall wish to keep the House well informed on our proposals. As I have said, we hope shortly to make a statement to the House, in whatever form is thought approporiate, about the review, and later to make a statement about a possible alternative status.
I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the development of technology. The work in digital mapping referred to in the Serpell report which the hon. Gentleman has probably studied, as I have, could be an important development which I hope it will be possible to encourage and develop. There is also the possibility of expanding British technology overseas.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is the deficit to which my right hon. Friend referred carried on the Defence Vote, or on the Vote of his Department?

Mr. King: I believe that it is carried on the Department, but I think that it comes under the Treasury as well.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that before reaching a final decision he will have the fullest possible consultation with all the trade unions and staff representatives at the Ordnance Survey, and also with representatives of organisations which use Ordnance Survey maps extensively?

Mr. King: We have already informed the unions, whose concern about the matter we understand, that we are considering these matters. At an appropriate stage there will, of course, be further discussions with them. We shall certainly be consulting more widely, and also with the private sector, which is obviously concerned. As many hon. Members know, there is concern in the private sector about what, in certain aspects of the more popular maps, it feels is subsidised competition with which it has to compete.

Mr. Hill: My right hon. Friend will know that the whole of the Ordnance Survey is based in my constituency and that I have already presented a petition of about 2,000 signatures to his right hon. Friend—for whose acknowledgment I am grateful. Is it possible for the Member of Parliament most concerned in this problem also to be consulted? If this undertaking is to be privatised in any way, does my hon. Friend agree that full consultation should take place not only with the unions, but with the Member of Parliament, on the welfare of constituents who rely on pay packets from the Ordnance Survey? Is he aware that those people are very cooperative, but that, nevertheless, indecision breeds fear?

Mr. King: I assure my hon. Friend that we shall be very willing and anxious to hear any representations that he wishes to make on this matter.

Mr. Kaufman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Ordnance Survey is regarded throughout the world as a prize national asset of this country and that if he and his right hon. Friend tamper with that national asset for reasons of party dogmatism they will be committing an act of vandalism that will not easily be forgivable.

Mr. King: The right hon. Gentleman refers to this as though he were talking about some aspect of the national heritage—[HON. MEMBERS:"It is."]—as though it were in some sense like the Crown jewels or some inanimate object. This is a dynamic and important facility. It is involved in high technology in the development of new production processes for maps. It is not one that can be fossilised, put on the shelf and admired from a distance. It is one that must be properly organised. It is also an expensive facility. We recognise our responsibilities in this matter. We recognise the quality of the performance of the Ordnance Survey. We also recognise the importance of ensuring that that quality is achieved at a cost that the nation can afford.

Merseyside

Mr. Steen: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money has been earmarked for the


Liverpool urban development corporation and the partnership committee, the general development area and the traditional urban aid programmes on Merseyside; and what percentage of the total will come from central Government.

Mr. Heseltine: At outturn prices, the proposed UDC's initial allocation in 1981–82 will be £17 million. Further sums may be allocated in respect of certain land acquisitions. The Liverpool partnership will get £17·6 million, and Wirral—Merseyside's only programme authority—about £2¾ million, depending on the quality of its programme. The other Merseyside districts designated under the Inner Urban Areas Act—Sefton and St. Helens—will receive some resources for industrial and commercial projects—how much depends on demand and availability of resources. We hope to announce decisions on traditional urban programme circular 21 in April.
The UDC will be financed at a 100 per cent. rate. The central Government contribution to urban programme projects is normally 75 per cent.

Mr. Steen: Will my right hon. Friend recognise that the principal reason why private investment and private industry have been driven out of the centre of Liverpool and other large cities is the increasing level of Government intervention? If he believes in joint enterprise between the Government and the private sector, and in real partnership, what is he doing to see that that takes place?

Mr. Heseltine: I have made it clear that in future the expenditure programmes under the urban programme will be authorised by me only if there has been full consultation with the private sector—for example with the chamber of commerce in Liverpool. I have also introduced—and we hope shortly to see established—an urban development corporation to reclaim the most difficult areas in Liverpool. That has substantial representation from the private sector, including, of course, the chairman.

Homelessness

Mr. Soley: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment, of the total of national homelessness, what percentage there is in Greater London.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg): From the latest statistics supplied by local authorities in England, we estimate that in the first half of 1980 local authorities accepted responsibility for securing accommodation for about 29,000 households. Of these, some 29 per cent. were initially accepted by London boroughs.

Mr. Soley: Is the Minister aware that in the calendar year 1980 there were only 4,100 local authority lets in the Greater London area, compared with 24,000 in 1977? Does he agree that this not only deprives the homeless and those on the waiting list of any real hope, but is a damning indictment of the Government's housing policy and that of Conservative local authorities?

Mr. Finsberg: An even more damning indictment is the deliberate attempt by the Labour Party to sabotage shorthold and the inefficiency of the majority of London Labour boroughs in keeping houses empty because of party dogma.

Mr. Squire: Does my hon. Friend accept that while the well-documented aberrations of the Opposition, some of

which he has just given us, are well-known and accepted on this side of the House—indeed, they ignore the national surplus in housing—there is a particular problem in London, which I earnestly commend to him and ask whether he recognises that the market alone is probably unable to cope with it.

Mr. Finsberg: I think that my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the particular problems of London, but it is right to point out, for example, that London's HIP allocation is about £548 million, which represents £200 for every household, compared with £85 per household in the rest of the country? London has not done all that badly. It must also be remembered that if Labour boroughs started selling their properties to the tenants they could augment their HIP allocations.

Mr. Alton: I congratulate the Government on at least providing £12 million this year for the renewal of many of the hostels for the homeless that are run by the Salvation Army and the Church Army, but is the Minister aware of the press conference held last week by the Archbishop of Canterbury and those two organisations? Is he aware of the great anxiety felt by those organisations, which deal with homeless people? Is he prepared to meet them to discuss the major crisis that they are experiencing, in view of the fact that they say that £12 million will not be enough to cope with the growing problem of homelessness that they are trying to tackle?

Mr. Finsberg: I am sure that my right hon. Friend and I are always delighted to meet anyone who has a view to put. It is perhaps a trifle unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman omitted to mention, first, that this is the first time that any Government have done this sort of thing, and secondly, that the Archbishop congratulated my right hon. Friend on this initiative?

Mr. Lawrence: Does my hon. Friend agree that the last Adminstration's destruction of the private rented sector did more than anything else to precipitate homelessness? Will he try a little harder to reverse those policies?

Mr. Finsberg: We hope very much that the provisions of the Housing Act 1980—apart from shorthold—to encourage the private rented sector will indicate to people that this is a very important sector. The most helpful development in the provision of additional housing would be for the Labour Party to live in the 1980s, and not in the 1930s.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: When the Minister quotes the HIP allocation for Greater London this year, does he acknowledge that that HIP allocation is less than 50 per cent. of what was requested? Will he also acknowledge that the London Boroughs Association, which is Tory controlled, now says that 75 per cent. of all the boroughs' lets in 1982 will be taken by homeless families, and that the real problem is that they do not have the money to make any housing starts over the next few years?

Mr. Finsberg: I hope that the hon. Lady realises that it would be unrealistic to allocate the limited housing capital available on the basis of bids. The greediest would make the biggest bids. We have tried to relate housing to need. That is what is required.

Partnership Committees

Mr. Greenway: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will abolish the Lambeth and Hackney, Islington partnership committees.

Mr. Heseltine: No, Sir. I have already announced that after a review of inner city policy I do not intend to change the present status of partnership authorities. However, as I indicated in my statement of 18 September last year, I have refused to authorise expenditure on new statutory schemes by Lambeth and Hackney London boroughs, which are not only high overspenders but have acted contrary to the spirit of partnership in ignoring the Government's calls for current expenditure reductions in 1980–81.

Mr. Greenway: As it is clear that my right hon. Friend is dissatisfied with the working of the partnership agreements, will he abolish them?

Mr. Heseltine: In the majority of authorities, partnerships contribute towards solving the problems of inner urban areas. That is why I decided to continue with them. Unfortunately, there are a small number of authorities that seem determined to do the maximum amount of damage possible to their areas by high overspending. I am not prepared to add to the burden that has already been placed on ratepayers, by continuing with the projects of those specific authorities.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Is the Secretary of State aware of his hon. Friend's impudence in raising matters that affect constituencies other than his own, which is exceeded only by his invincible ignorance about those areas? Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that an area such as Hackney faces enormous problems of deprivation, which he has simply failed to recognise? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the uncertainties that he has created for that local authority and for industries operating in that area are mutilating the authority's prospects? The right hon. Gentleman has the sole responsibility for that.

Mr. Heseltine: The Labour Party has put forward an interesting new doctrine, to the effect that hon. Members should not raise matters that affect the constituencies of others. I look forward to that admirable suggestion being taken up by his right hon. and hon. Friends. I care very much about the employment prospects in those boroughs where partnership arrangements exist. It is because I am appalled by the high level of rate increases—which the Labour Party has encouraged—and by the job-destroying effect that that has on those areas that I have taken such steps.

Land Development

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the way that local planning authorities are operating section 52 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 agreements relating to regulating the development of land.

Mr. King: I have already asked the Property Advisory Group to examine this question. I expect it to report by the middle of the year and I shall then consider whether any action is needed.

Mr. Chapman: As my right hon. Friend's Property Advisor}' Group identified this problem and brought it to

his attention in a report as long ago as February 1980, will he deplore the increasing tendency of many local authorities to insist that a potential developer should provide council facilities and, in one case, a substantial amount of money, precedent to the granting of planning permission? Will my right hon. Friend reiterate that planning determinations should be based on planning considerations only and not on the size of an applicant's pocket?

Mr. King: I can understand my hon Friend's concern about this matter. It raises issues that are of great concern to the House, including whether this is a proper use of planning power. The report, which I expect in June, will be very helpful on this matter, which—as my hon. Friend knows as well as anyone else—is complicated. I would rather not comment further at this stage.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: When my right hon. Friend considers the subject will he bear in mind the fact that there is considerable disquiet in parts of the Lake District, where the planning authority is the Lake District special planning board? That board uses section 52 to grant planning permission on condition that the dwelling in question is inhabited by someone who is employed locally."Employed locally" has been defined on some occasions as meaning within the parish. Does my right hon. Friend agree that such conditions may not be legally enforceable? Will he further agree that they are, in any event, wholly unreasonable?

Mr. King: I should like to consider the points that my hon. Friend has raised. I was not aware that the provision was being used in such a restrictive way. Its use does not seem to be in line with the original intentions of section 52. If my hon. Friend writes to me, I shall have the matter considered.

Mr. Cant: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that some developments involve local authorities in massive costs in terms of infrastructure and that there is bound to be considerable hard bargaining between developers and local authorities, particularly where highway development is concerned? Does he agree that his new capital expenditure control system, which severely limits capital expenditure even further, makes the possibility of reaching section 52 agreements even more difficult?

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman's question merely underlines the wisdom of my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman).

House Building (Planning Contravention)

Mr. Farr: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if it is his policy that where a house is built in a position which does not comply with planning consent it should be removed.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw): Not necessarily.

Mr. Farr: I thank my hon. Friend for that brief reply, but is he aware that by the ingenious use of the appeal machinery it is possible to delay almost indefinitely the demolition of a house that has been improperly built? Does my hon. Friend think that that is right? Will he consider a way of speeding up the machinery, so that if it is admitted that a house has been built in an improper position it can be demolished without delay?

Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend will be aware that there are many cases in which buildings can be ameliorated. Therefore, those buildings would not require demolition. We must ensure that we strike a fair balance, and that is why there is an appeal system.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Will the Minister accept that there is scope for great abuse in a system that makes it possible for someone who has applied for planning consent and had that consent refused and his appeal rejected to hold up the enforcement procedure while a fresh application is made? Does my hon. Friend agree that the procedure can go on almost indefinitely, and that legislative action may be needed to prevent that?

Mr. Shaw: I appreciate that there should, and could, be ways of speeding up the appeals procedure so that such matters can be dealt with more quickly. My right hon. Friend and I are looking at the matter.

Palace of Westminster

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what works or repairs are currently being carried out on the Palace of Westminster; at whose recommendation; and at what cost.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I have authorised essential structural repairs to and repainting of the roof of Victoria Tower at a cost of £80,000 after receiving professional advice from the Property Services Agency. A further £ 11,000 is likely to be spent in the current year as part of a continuous programme of replacement of the weathered statues around the colonnade.

Mr. Janner: Do the Minister's plans include the repair of the masonry around the Members' entrance, part of which collapsed this week? If not, will the hon. Gentleman be less selective in the dangers that he perpetuates and arrange for some of the masonry to fall outside the public entrance as well? Is the hon. Gentleman waiting for a by-election, the recess, or the death of all qualified stonemasons before the Palace is put into proper order?

Mr. Finsberg: I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not wish to exaggerate. We have already removed the potentially dangerous coping stones and string courses. We have brushed off all the spalling stone surfaces. We have spent over £105,000 on making sound the stonework above doorways. At some time during the Summer Recess we propose to start the replacement of the stone copings. As I have had to indicate to the House before, there is a major problem. With the best will in the world, we cannot, in a limited time, repair the weather ravages of a century or more.

Mr. Stokes: When will work start on cleaning the whole of the outside of the Palace of Westminster? Does my hon. Friend agree that it badly needs doing? Would it not be far cheaper than giving aid to the nationalised industries?

Mr. Finsberg: I shall not allow myself to be drawn into the subject of aid to the nationalised industries. We are still trying to decide how best to allocate the limited funds available, bearing in mind that, as hon. Members will have seen in the Select Committee's report, the total cost is about £5 million.

Mr. Jay: Will the Minister give an assurance that the Government have no plans to privatise the Palace of Westminster?

Mr. Finsberg: This side of the Chamber has no such plans.

Council House Sales

Mr. Durant: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many letters his Department has received from council tenants complaining that their local authorities are hindering their right to buy.

Mr. Lawrence: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is now satisfied that tenants of all councils are exercising their right to buy effectively and without hindrance from their local authorities.

Mr. Alexander: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking in connection with those local authorities who delay in processing the sale of council houses to their tenants who wish to buy.

Mr. Stanley: The Department has received approximately 2,000 letters from tenants complaining about delay in a small minority of local authorities. Each of these individual complaints is being pursued by the Department with the authority concerned. In addition, the Department has now taken up formally with the following 16 authorities their rate of progress in implementing the right to buy. The authorities are Bolsover, Bristol, Doncaster, Great Yarmouth, Hull, Leeds, Manchester, Sheffield, Stoke-on-Trent, Sunderland, Wolverhampton and the London boroughs of Barking and Dagenham, Camden Greenwich, Lambeth and Newham.

Mr. Durant: May I thank my hon. Friend for that depressing reply, bearing in mind that this is the law of the land? Will he examine the situation in which some local authorities are not passing documents to the valuation departments to enable the purchasing process to be continued? Following the exchanges on Lambeth, will he come to the House when he has investigated the matter and make a statement about the scandal that is mentioned in the newspapers today? Will he even consider putting in commissioners, bearing in mind that this is the law of he land and that we are here to defend the rights of the citizens?

Mr. Stanley: On the general point that my hon. Friend rightly makes, I can assure him that the Government are concerned to see that all local authority, new town and housing association tenants with the right to buy are able to exercise that right. The Government will ensure that they are not denied that right through delays or administrative inaction by Labour-controlled local authorities.
In regard to my hon. Friend's points about valuation, I agree that there are signs of a bottleneck in some authorities in processing valuations. It is incumbent on all local authorities to make instructions available quickly to district valuers or other valuation services that they use to get the valuations carried out. We wish to continue our inquiries with Lambeth council. The Government will be glad to inform my hon. Friend and the House what the position is there.

Mr. Lawrence: What advice does my hon. Friend give to the many thousands of tenants of Labour-controlled


authorities that are dragging their feet, and have not yet contacted his Department about what they can do about this matter? What positive assurance does he give that the Government will take action to oblige those recalcitrant councils to perform their rights and duties?

Mr. Stanley: It is open to any tenant who has submitted a right-to-buy application form and who has not received a response notice to it within the statutory period, to tell the local authority and also to tell the Department. We have made that clear in the right-to-buy application form. Any tenant can make direct contact with the Department of the Environment and give the Department information about the application.
So far as intervention is concerned, my hon. Friend will be aware that under section 23 of the Housing Act it is open to my right hon. Friend to intervene where it appears to him that tenants have, or may have, difficulty in exercising the right to buy effectively and expeditiously. I assure him that my right hon. Friend is assessing progress in each and every authority againt that yardstick.

Mr. Alexander: Will my hon. Friend consider adding to the list the district council of Gateshead where, it is understood, threats are being made to potential purchasers regarding the type of neighbours that they may receive if they proceed with a purchase? Is not this a subtle threat to a would-be purchaser and an infringement of the rights that exist under the Act? If my hon. Friend considers it as such, will he. in this type of case, exercise his powers under section 23 and intervene with the local authority concerned?

Mr. Stanley: I shall be glad to consider any information that my hon. Friend cares to send me about the rate of progress in that authority. I assure him that I deplore absolutely any steps taken by elected councillors to try to intimidate or prevent people exercising their rights under the law.

Mr. Stoddart: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he has also received correspondence from people who are against the sale of council houses? Will he confirm that he has received from me a petition from the Townswomen's Guild and many other people, including the whole council in Swindon, against the proposed sale of the Railway Village, a listed building, erected in 1840, which proposal has aroused fears that our heritage will be destroyed?

Mr. Stanley: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the electorate as a whole had a chance to express a view in this matter in May 1979 and decided to give council tenants the statutory right to buy their homes.

Mr. Garel-Jones: Is my hon. Friend aware that nearly 1,000 of my constituents in Watford have applied for the right to buy from the local authority but have now received a letter from the local authority informing them that no repairs will be undertaken in their homes? Since the local authority, they believe, is dragging its feet, they find themselves in a position where no repairs can be made to their houses while no offers for them to buy have been made to them? What does my hon. Friend say about that situation?

Mr. Stanley: I can assure my hon. Friend that the statutory responsibility of a local authority in respect of repairs to a given council house continues for such time as that council house remains in its ownership.

Mr. Eastham: The hon. Gentleman persists in attacking Labour local authorities over the sale of council houses. Will he admit that his Department and its civil servants are responsible for compiling the statutory forms which have resulted in such confusion in Manchester that 29 per cent. of the 4,000 applications have had to be returned? This is a direct result of the guidance given by the Department of !he Environment. Is he aware that at the same time, in Manchester, the housing aid department has seen a doubling in the number of applications for a house in which to live?

Mr. Stanley: I can inform the hon. Gentleman that I had the pleasure last Friday of meeting representatives of the Manchester Tenants Housebuyers Association. The entire burden of their remarks was that many thousands of applications for the right to buy have been submitted to Manchester council and many hundreds of applications—which I hope will soon become some thousands—have been acknowledged. The difficulty tenants experience is getting an adequate rate of progress from Manchester council.

Industrial Cities (Rejuvenation)

Sir William Elliott: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money has been earmarked for the two urban development corporations, the six partnership committees, the 15 programme authorities, the assisted areas and the traditional urban aid programmes to rejuvenate the larger industrial cities; and what percentage of this comes from central Government funds.

Mr. Stevens: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money has been earmarked for the two urban development corporations, the six partnership committees, the 15 programme authorities, the assisted areas and the traditional urban aid programmes to revitalize the towns and cities; and what percentage of this comes from central Government funds.

Mr. King: The proposed allocations for 1981–82 at outturn prices are £82 million for UDCs, £113 million for partnerships, £49 million for programme authorities, £5 million for other designated districts and £44 million for the traditional urban programme. Urban programme grant is normally 75 per cent. UDCs will be 100 per cent.

Sir William Elliott: Will my right hon. Friend accept that it is recognised in such old cities as Newcastle upon Tyne that Government assistance with rejuvenation is considerable? Will he also accept that revitalisation depends very much on private investment which can get our cities going? Will he encourage private investment to the maximum of his influence?

Mr. King: We are most anxious to do that. However much public money is available—it is obviously limited at present—we shall not get the improvements that are needed without the maximum contribution, to be used as pump-priming, from the private sector. I share my hon. Friend's desire in that respect.

Mr. William Shelton: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the loss of rate support grant in London which may amount to £200 million could seriously hinder the rejuvenation of our capital city? Should there not be some tighter safety net to limit any furher loss?

Mr. King: I would not like to comment on the figures used by my hon. Friend. This matter will depend on the


rating and spending decisions of individual authorities. This is a difficult problem. As my hon. Friend knows as well as anyone in the House, expenditure decisions by certain authorities can do more damage to the sort of objective we all share for urban programme or partnership objectives, which it is then impossible for public money to repair. We are most anxious to strike a proper balance in these matters.

Mr. Dixon: Will the Minister accept that urban problems are not solely confined to industrial cities? South Tyneside faces as many problems as some industrial cities. Will he also accept that when the partnership and urban programme schemes were introduced it was stated that they would be reassessed, from time to time, with a view to grading them? In view of the high level of unemployment in South Tyneside, primarily due to the Government's policies, the cutback in local expenditure because of the redistribution of the rate support grant and the fact that the housing investment programme allocation means that virtually no new houses will be built and that many construction workers will be thrown on the dole, will the Minister now accept that South Tyneside should be reassessed as a partnership scheme instead of a programme scheme?

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we reviewed the urban programme and the issue of partnership and programme authorities. We decided to make no change. South Tyneside is a programme authority and receives significant help in that respect.

Home Ownership Schemes

Mr. Brinton: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities have shown interest in the new film on low-cost home ownership made by his Department.

Mr. Stanley: The Department's film on low-cost home ownership is attracting widespread interest, not only from local authorities, but from new towns, housing associations, private housebuilders, professional bodies and lending institutions. Arrangements are being made to show it to all housing authorities in England, approximately two-thirds of which have already arranged to see it.

Mr. Brinton: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that the Opposition were so keen on the prospect of low-cost house buildings that they refused to allow the inclusion of a date for a showing of the film in The Whip? Will my hon. Friend encourage the remaining one-third of local authorities to make use of the film and thus stretch slender resources further under this admirable plan?

Mr. Stanley: I assure my hon. Friend that outside the House there is some interest among Labour Party supporters in seeing the low-cost home ownership film. I am ready to acknowledge that a number of Labour-controlled authorities are engaging in homesteading, shared ownership and improvement for sale projects. I hope that we can reach a measure of agreement across the Floor of the House on the desirability of using this means of extending home ownership.

Mr. Alton: Does the Minister accept that instead of merely producing a film on low-cost home ownership it

would be better, and much more in the interests of those buying their own homes, if he were to bring down the mortgage rate to the level that obtained when he became responsible for housing matters?

Mr. Stanley: I am glad to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that despite the level of the mortgage rate we have had a significant extension of home ownership during the lifetime of the Government. We have on the statute book the most far-reaching means of extending home ownership that there has ever been.

Housing Act

Dr. Mawhinney: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the level of interest shown in the shorthold provision of the Housing Act.

Mr. Heseltine: It is still too early to assess the impact of shorthold in terms of lettings.

Mr. Mawhinney: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he estimate how many people are living in bad housing conditions because of the Labour Party's vindictive prejudice against the shorthold provisions and the private rented sector?

Mr. Heseltine: It would be difficult to give a precise figure. There is a significant number in the position that my hon. Friend has described. On the other hand, it is not as large as the number who are living in inadequate accommodation as a result of the Labour Government doing nothing to deal with the private rented sector, in which so many could otherwise have been housed.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that most of the decline in the private rented sector stems from the fact that the majority of those who have been unable to escape from that sector have incomes that are inadequate to enable them to pay rents that will give a return to landlords to allow them to compete with the subsidised return of a house purchaser. Does he accept that the fact that a house purchaser is subsidised and a private rented tenant is not lies at the root of the sector's decline?

Mr. Heseltine: No. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are rent allowances to protect those on low incomes in the private rented sector. The root cause of the decline is inflation, which has placed capital values way above the income returns from controlled rents. We have tried to introduce a more flexible system to combat, in part at least, the trend that I have described, and that is why the shorthold experiment should be welcomed, as opposed to being deliberately sabotaged by the Labour Party.

Mr. Grieve: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on introducing the shorthold provisions, which, if properly respected, should go a long way to deal with the shortage of private rented accommodation. However, does he accept that two factors militate against the release of the large quantity of vacant space in private houses? The first factor is the difficulty of obtaining repossession once a tenancy has been granted. The second factor is the weight of the Rent Acts. Will he give further consideration to amending the law in both respects?

Mr. Heseltine: I am most grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. I think that he will find that the recent Housing Act has gone some way towards easing the situation and redressing the balance. The most dramatic


advance that we introduced was, conspicuously, the shorthold concept. Nothing indicates more clearly the difficulty of trying to get genuine provision of more housing in the private rented sector than the deliberate sabotage on the part of the Labour Party. That indicates that it is far more interested in party dogma than in housing conditions.

New Towns

Mr. Robert Atkins: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to continue rehabilitation and redevelopment assistance to those local authorities where new town corporations are to be wound up.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I shall be consulting the local authorities concerned about the implications for them of the target dates for winding up the relevant development corporations. I shall, of course, consider any points they raise about future assistance for urban renewal.

Mr. Atkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Central Lancashire new town has received no official notification of the winding up of the corporation and that no consultation has been carried out with either the Central Lancashire development corporation or the local authorities concerned? Bearing in mind that the leader of Lancashire county council, together with an all-party delegation of boroughs affected by the winding up, is coming to Parliament this afternoon to discuss with Lancashire Members what should happen, has he any message that I can give them?

Mr. Finsberg: I am perturbed to hear what my hon. Friend says. A letter was sent to the chairman of the development corporation, as is normal and customary. I cannot be responsible for non-delivery, but I can firmly assure the House that the normal courtesies were rightly observed.

Mr. Newens: Is the Minister aware that many residents of new towns are now becoming convinced that the Government are prepared to discriminate against them? If there is to be any rehabilitation, or if further funds are to become available, what hope is there that the Government will behave any better than they did in the shameful matter of the settlement of the section 10 claims?

Mr. Finsberg: I have a feeling that the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question was designed to follow question 18.

Mr. Newens: No, it was not.

Mr. Finsberg: However, I am glad to answer it. I believe that the Government are doing all that they can to assist, within the resources available.

New Towns

Mr. Newens: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has yet reached agreement with those local authorities to which new town houses have been transferred on the settlement of claims under section 10 of the New Towns (Amendment) Act 1976.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: No, Sir.

Mr. Newens: How does the Minister justify the disgraceful procrastination that has taken place on the

settlement of the section 10 claims, which is preventing local authorities from carrying out essential works such as those required to be done in my constituency on a defective district heating scheme at Brocklesmead? Does the hon. Gentleman realise that unless some early action is taken he should not have the effrontery to criticise other authorities that keep houses empty? Does he understand that he is making it difficult for good authorities with good records—such as that enjoyed by the authority in my constituency—to keep their houses in a state in which they can be occupied?

Mr. Finsberg: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that negotiations on the defects began when the Labour Government were in office.

Mr. Newens: They are still going on.

Mr. Finsberg: It is a difficult problem. I have made it clear time and again—the local authorities know this, even if they have not told the hon. Gentleman—that the settlement of the claim need not prejudice their starting on urgent repairs.

House Building

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the present levels of house building, housing improvements and the level of rents in both the public and private sectors.

Mr. Stanley: I am satisfied that local authorities now have the necessary powers and discretion to obtain the optimum housing value for the available public expenditure, and that in the private sector the building industry will respond very positively to the Government's low-cost home-ownership programme.

Mr. Hardy: Does that mean that the Government are satisfied with the growing needs of those affected by the moratorium, by the inflationary increases in rents and the cost of rent rebates and rent allowances, which involves an enormous transfer of resources? Does it mean that the Government are satisfied with the high level of unemployment in the building trades, while the condition of the nation's housing stock deteriorates? Should not the Government be profoundly dissatisfied with their record over the past two years?

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Member will be aware that as from 1 April it will be open to local authorities to increase the HIP allocations by the use of capital receipts. My latest information is that nearly 4,000 right-to-buy applications have been received by Rotherham district council, which suggests that the hon. Gentleman should be giving full support to a rapid processing of those applications, in order to increase the availability of housing capital expenditure in his constituency.

Mr. Hill: Is my hon. Friend aware of the anomaly building up in the public and private rented sectors, in that private rents are now far below the public rents that are paid through councils? Rent officers in the districts, certainly in Southampton, have had no indication from the Department of Environment—or any other indication—and they are still assessing rents on the basis of a formula that has not changed for the past five years.

Mr. Stanley: As my hon. Friend will be aware, the fixing of rents in the private sector is done on a statutory


basis and it is not open to Ministers to intervene in the way in which the rent officer service carries its statutory responsibility. In the Housing Act 1980 we reduced the period between fair rent reviews from three years to two years to ensure that a fair rent maintained its value in the light of the current rate of inflation.

Mr. Kaufman: Can the Minister say whether council housing starts will reach 20,000 this year?

Mr. Stanley: That will depend upon the decisions that the individual authorities take between improving their existing stock and starting new building.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 20 MARCH

Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Clive Soley.
Mr. John Bruce-Gardyne
Mr. Peter Hordern

Consumer Credit Act 1974 (Amendment)

Mr. Ken Weetch: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend sections 52 and 53 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 in order to require building societies to follow 'truth in lending' policies when providing to prospective borrowers information about the financial terms on which mortgages are offered and when displaying such information.
The proposed Bill is concerned with truth in lending. For that purpose I seek to amend the Consumer Credit Act 1974, which established in legislation the principle of truth in lending. The Act was a considerable step forward because, in simple terms, it obliged those who lent money and advertised credit to quote accurate and true rates of interest.
The Act stated that borrowers had to be told the truth about the rate of interest that they were being charged. It established a standard formula for quoting interest rates when they were advertised publicly. That is the APR, or the annual percentage rate of interest. The APR. or the true rate of interest, is the rate of interest, broadly speaking, that takes into consideration the value of the repayments made on the loan received. That is a simple working definition.
The 1974 Act arose as a result of the Crowther report on consumer credit. The aim of the Act was to compel providers of credit to quote rates of interest in a standard way so that the consumer could make a comparison of one interest rate with another. In practice, the Act was an aid to more effective credit competition. However, it is astonishing that the largest lenders, the building societies, were exempted from its provisions. The biggest purveyors of credit were allowed to escape scot-free from its obligations. If someone borrows money to buy a bicycle or a hi-fi system, the person lending the money has to quote the true interest rate. However, if a person borrows money for a house—the most important purchase of his life—there is no obligation on the building society to give the true interest cost of the loan.
If on an ordinary repayment mortgage—the sort that most people have—a person thinks that he is borrowing at 15 per cent., that is not the truth, because the true rate of interest is higher. That is because the building society charges 15 per cent. interest on the whole amount of the loan outstanding at the beginning of the year. In reality, however, one pays monthly, and each monthly payment includes a repayment of part of the principal as well as the interest on the loan.
Because that is not allowed for in the calculations, the true rate of interest is higher that that quoted by the building society. A person may think that he is borrowing at 15 per cent., but over 15 years the true rate of interest is 16·6 per cent. Over 20 years the true rate of interest is 16·4 per cent. and over 25 years the true rate is 16-2 per cent. At best, that is misleading and, at worst, deception.
There is no good reason to exclude building societies from the obligations that most other lenders have to fulfil. The position is confused in mortgage lending because, although building societies are excluded from those obligations, other organisations, such as the banks and the trustee savings banks, are included.

Sir William Clark: So are local authorities.

Mr. Weetch: I accept that local authorities are included.
The major disadvantage for the house purchaser is that he is hindered from comparing one rate of interest with another. There have been times when many could have obtained better financial terms from the banks. But the banks were placed at a disadvantage in advertising because they were obliged to quote true rates while the building societies were not. There is no justification for that. The administrative problems involved in quoting the APR are not so formidable that they justify concealing the truth.
The Bill is based on two principles. The first is that millions of home buyers throughout the country are worth protecting and it is worth revealing to them the true cost of the credit that they pay. The second is that in rates of interest and credit, as in anything else, the truth is the truth.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ken Weetch, Mr. Jim Craigen, Mr. Peter Fry, Mr. Leslie Spriggs, Mr. K. J. Woolmer and, Mr. Peter Hardy.

CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974 (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Ken Weetch accordingly presented a Bill to amend sections 52 and 53 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 in order to require building societies to follow 'truth in lending' policies when providing to prospective borrowers information about the financial terms on which mortgages are offered and when displaying such information: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 19 June and to be printed [Bill 85].

FISHERIES [MONEY] (No. 2)

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to establish a Sea Fish Industry Authority with the duty of promoting the efficiency of the sea fish industry in the United Kingdom, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required by Ministers—


(a)to fulfil guarantees given by them in connection with borrowing by the Authority;

or

(b)to make grants to the Authority in respect of—

 (i) expenses incurred by the Authority in fulfilling guarantees given to assist co-operatives; or
 (ii) losses incurred by the Authority where the Authority have borrowed money in one currency and lent it in another.— [Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

Orders of the Day — Fisheries Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

GOVERNMENT GUARANTEES

'(1) The Ministers may guarantee, in such manner and on such conditions as they think fit, the repayment of the principal of and the payment of interest on any sums which the Authority borrows otherwise than from Ministers.

(2) Immediately after giving any such guarantee the Minister shall lay before each House of Parliament a statement showing the extent and character of the guarantee and the circumstances in which it came to be given.

(3) If any sum is paid by the Ministers in fulfilment of a guarantee under this section, the Authority shall as from the date of the payment be indebted to the Ministers in the amount of payment and the Ministers shall lay before each House of Parliament as soon as practicable after the end of the financial year in which the payment is made a statement showing the amount and the circumstances in which it was made.

(4) Where any sum is so paid, the Authority shall make to the Ministers, at such time and in such manner as the Ministers from time to time direct—


(a)payments of such amount as the Ministers so direct in or towards repayment of that sum; and
(b)payments if interest at such rate as the Ministers so direct on what is outstanding for the time being in respect of that sum;

and so long as that sum has not been repaid in full, together with any interest payable, the Ministers shall, from time to time as the Treasury may request and in any case not less often than once in each financial year, lay before each House of Parliament a statement showing how much of that sum remains to be repaid by the Authority, the proposed programme for future repayments, and what directions are currently in force or are proposed to be given with respect to the payment of interest.

(5) The consent of the Treasury is required for any guarantee given by the Ministers under this section and for any direction given by them under subsection (4) above.'.—[Mr. Buchanan- Smith.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I beg to move that the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause provides an enabling power the purpose of which would be to assist the Sea Fish Industry Authority to borrow funds for the exercise of its powers. Certain lending institutions, such as the European Investment Bank, will lend funds only if they obtain a Government guarantee of repayment of the loan principal and interest payments. The Government consider that it would be helpful to the new authority to enable it to borrow from such sources and we therefore propose to take the powers in the clause to provide such guarantees.
The clause provides for guarantees to be given in respect of principal and interest. There are provisions to ensure that Parliament is kept informed of the use to which the powers are put and to provide for a situation in which the Government make payments to the authority in fulfilment of the guarantee. Similar powers already exist in respect of other bodies and the provisions that I am introducing follow closely the existing precedents.
It is difficult to judge at present how such powers may be used, but I hope that the House will agree that it is

prudent to take them, since they could give the authority additional scope in funding its activities. I think that I interpret correctly the wishes of the House and of the Standing Committee on the Bill when I say that we want to give the new authority as flexible a framework as possible in which to operate.

Mr. Gavin Strang: The Opposition are happy to support the new clause. It gives additional financial flexibility to the new authority. It is an important point of principle, in the sense that the authority will be free to borrow from the private sector and the Government will guarantee its borrowings. That is in line with the Government's thinking on at least one nationalised industry, and we are happy that the new clause should be added to the Bill.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: What is the view of the Social Democratic Alliance on the new clause? I was hoping to hear an SDA Member giving his views. None of them is here. Apparently the SDA is the coming Government, I should like to know the views of its Members.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

GOVERNMENT GRANTS

The Ministers may, with the consent of the Treasury make grants to the Authority, on such conditions as they think fit, in respect of—


(a)any expenses incurred by the Authority in fulfilling a guarantee given under section 3(1)(f) above; 
(b) any loss incurred by the Authority by reason of foreign exchange fluctuations where the Authority has borrowed money in one currency and lent it in another'— [Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

Brought up, and read the First Time.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may take Government amendments Nos. 5, 6, 11, 12, 33, and 34.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The new clause is in two parts and I shall deal with them separately. The first part and most of the amendments relate to loans to fishery cooperatives. In the amendments the Government are providing powers for additional financial help to fishery co-operatives. In doing so, we recognise the position of co-operatives and, in particular, the role that they can play in improving the marketing of fish.
By their nature, co-operatives can face special problems in obtaining loan finance, and the powers could be of value to them. That problem has been drawn to our attention by fishery co-operatives since the publication of the Bill, and in introducing the new clause I am responding directly to those reasonable representations.
Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 provide powers for the Sea Fish Industry Authority to act as guarantor in respect of loans to co-operatives. Such a power is currently available to the White Fish Authority, and we consider that it should also be available to the new authority. Any sums for which the new authority stands guarantor are potential commitments, analogous to its own borrowings, and amendments Nos. 11 and 12 therefore provide that the sums guaranteed by the authority shall count towards its borrowing limits as set out in clause 6.
The power to guarantee loans has not been exercised by the WFA, because of the potential costs to the authority of fulfilling a guarantee if it became necessary. We have carefully considered the problem, particularly in the light of representations made to us, and we have decided to seek powers in the first part of the new clause to enable a Government grant to be made to the SFIA if, in using the guarantee powers, it incurs expenditure. That should be welcome to the co-operative movement. It is available to agricultural co-operatives and we hope to extend a similar facility to fishery co-operatives.
3.45 pm
The second half of the new clause is related to the powers of the authority to borrow finance. If it borrowed from overseas it would presumably be borrowing in foreign currency, but it would obviously be lending to the fishing industry in sterling. If exchange rates fluctuated, the authority could be involved in financial loss. The power in the second part of the new clause will allow the Government to give a guarantee to the authority in respect of such losses. It would be a further power to assist the authority in obtaining loan finance from whatever might be the most suitable source at any time. Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 make consequential provisions.
It is not possible at this stage to judge precisely how the powers will be exercised. However, it is clearly advantageous to insert them into the Bill so that they will be available to the authority if appropriate circumstances arise. The new clause is introduced in the same spirit as was the previous new clause. It will enable the authority to operate in a flexible way, in the best interests of the fishing industry, and to carry out its functions effectively.

Mr. Strang: The Opposition are happy to approve the new clause and amendments. As the Minister of State explained, they give greater financial flexibility to the authority and we support their inclusion in the Bill.

Mr. J. Grimond: I also welcome the new clause, but I wonder whether the Minister of State could help us to be clear about the drafting. The new clause refers to clause 3( 1)(f). Although the new clause relates only to co-operatives—as I understand—it appears from the drafting of the Bill that the authority might be empowered to make loans or grants
for the purchase of fishing gear, fuel, stores or other materials requisite for the sea fish industry".
whether through a co-operative or not. Am I correct in understanding that the new clause applies only to co-operatives?

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the Minister kindly say something further about the second element of the new clause? The power of the authority to borrow overseas does not appear to be in any way connected with the nature of the authority or its functions; it appears simply to be an extension of the borrowing opportunities of a public authority—much as local authorities and nationalised industries have borrowed abroad in recent years.
What ground is there for giving to the authority, any more than to any of those other bodies, including the Government, in other forms, and indemnity against bad speculation in borrowing in foreign currencies?

Mr Buchanan-Smith: The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) is correct. The new

clause applies solely to co-operatives. In reply to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), all that we are seeking to do is to give the authority the opportunity to borrow funds from whatever may be the most suitable source. I might add that the power is already available to the White Fish Authority. We are not introducing a new precedent in connection with the public authority that has responsibility for the sea fish industry.
The right hon. Gentleman fairly asks"Why should the Government carry the can if the authority seeks to speculate in foreign currencies?" I hope that the authority will not speculate in that way. It will borrow only where it is appropriate, and in the best interests of the functions that it performs, and it will do so prudently. I believe that it will benefit the industry that the authority serves.

Mr. Powell: Perhaps I was injudicious in using the word"speculation". In any case, it is an ambiguous term. Any borrowing in foreign currency of necessity involves the implication of future fluctuation of the exchange rates. Will the Minister say, first, whether the existing borrowing powers have been subject to a similar indemnity and, secondly, whether he knows of any parallel for other semi-public bodies which are authorised by statute to borrow being indemnified in a comparable way?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: There are precedents for these powers. I shall be happy to give the right hon. Gentleman details of them. We are not seeking to do anything new in this regard. We simply wish to help.
Will the right hon. Gentleman remind me of the second question that he asked me?

Mr. Powell: If we have to indemnify authorities for losses incurred as a result of borrowing overseas, and if a Government have to stand over those borrowings in this way, we had better limit the borrowing powers of those authorities to the national loans fund. After all, they seem to have it both ways; they are able to borrow outside the national loans fund and have the security that borrowing from the fund gives, and at the same time the public will indemnify them against the consequences of such borrowing. It is part of the Government's policy, and a part with which I agree, to borrow from the general public, if possible, but if at the same time we indemnify those who borrow from the general public we are trying to have our cake and eat it.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I shall look into that matter, but I do not accept the fears that the right hon. Gentleman expresses.
As a result of the strange way in which the House works, I now have the information about the other question that the right hon. Gentleman asked. British Nuclear fuels, for example, has powers in this connection. However, I shall look into the matter further, and if I obtain any fresh information about the way in which these powers are used by other bodies, I shall be very happy to let the right hon. Gentleman know.
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that all that we are seeking is to give the authority the opportunity to borrow from the most favourable sources. We believe that one such source could be a foreign source. Clearly, we expect the authority to act prudently, but without this guarantee we believe that it would be less prepared to borrow in that way. We think that the provision helps the authority, and the industry that the authority serves, by enabling it to go to the best sources for finance.

Sir Albert Costain: Before the Minister leaves that matter, will he say what will happen to the profits that are made on the exchange movement? Will the authority pocket the profits, while someone else has to pay for its losses?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I shall look into that matter. If the body is successful in its exchange transactions I am sure that it will be to the benefit of the sea fish industry. I shall consider the matter in relation to the guarantee and let my hon. Friend know.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3

LICENSING OF VESSELS RECEIVING TRANS-SHIPPED FISH

'(1) After section 4 of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 (licensing of fishing boats) there shall be inserted the following section:—
4A.—(1) The Ministers may by order provide that within British fishery limits or in any specified area within those limits the receiving by any vessel (whether British or foreign) of fish trans-shipped from any other vessel is prohibited unless authorised by a licence granted by one of the Ministers.
(2)Such an order may apply to the receiving of fish generally or to the receiving of—

(a)a specified description of fish; or
(b)fish caught by a specified method; or
(c)fish caught in a specified area; or
(d)fish caught or trans-shipped during a specified season of the year or other period; or
(e)fish caught or received by vessels of a specified description, including vessels registered in a specified country;
and may provide for exceptions from the prohibitions contained in it. 


(3) Where any vessel is used in contravention of a prohibition imposed by an order under this section, the master, the owner and the charterer (if any) are each guilty of an offence under this subsection.
(4) An order under this section, if made with the consent of the Treasury given for the purposes of this subsection, may authorise the making of a charge for a licence under this section, and if it does so it shall specify a maximum charge and may specify different maxima in relation to different classes of licence.
(5) A licence under this section shall be granted to the owner or charterer in respect of a named vessel and may authorise the receiving of fish generally or may confer limited authority by reference to, in particular,—

(a)the area within which the fish was caught or is transshipped; or
(b)the periods, times or particular voyages during which the fish was caught or is trans-shipped; or
(c)the descriptions and quantities of fish that may be received; or
(d)the description of vessel or method by which the transshipped fish was caught.

(6) A licence under this section may authorise the receiving of fish either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as appear to the Minister granting the licence to be necessary or expedient for the regulation of trans-shipment, including conditions as to the treatment on board the vessel of the fish received by it; and different conditions may be so imposed with respect to different vessels or vessels of different descriptions.
If such a condition is broken the master, the owner and the charterer (if any) are each guilty of an offence under this subsection.
(7) The Minister granting a licence under this section may require the master, the owner and the charterer (if any) of the vessel named in the licence and any agent named in the licence to provide him with such statistical information as he may direct, and a person who fails without reasonable excuse to comply with such a requirement is guilty of an offence under this subsection.
(8) Any person who—

(a) for the purpose of obtaining a licence under this section;

or
(b) in purported compliance with subsection (7) above, furnishes information which he knows to be false in a material particular or recklessly furnishes information which is false in a material particular is guilty of an offence under this subsection.

(9) The licensing power conferred by this section may be exercised so as to limit the number of vessels, or of any description of vessel (including vessels or any description of vessel registered in a specified country) engaged in receiving fish to such an extent as appears to the Ministers necessary or expedient for the regulation of trans-shipment.
(10) A licence under this section—

(a)may be varied from time to time; and
(b)may be revoked or suspended, if it appears to the Minister who granted it to be necessary or expedient for the regulation of trans-shipment.

(11) If a licence is varied, revoked or suspended, the Minister who granted it may, if he considers it appropriate in all the circumstances of the case, refund the whole or part of any charge made for the licence.
(12) The Ministers may make arrangements for any of their licensing powers under this section (but not the power to make orders under subsection (1)) to be exercised by other persons on their behalf.
 (2) In the following provisions of the said Act of 1967, after"4," there shall be inserted"4A."—

(a)in section 9(5) (exceptions for scientific investigations, etc,);
(b)in section 20(2) and (5) (orders to be made by statutory instrument and subject to negative resolution); and
(c)in the words in parenthesis in the definition of"sea fish" in section 22(1) (which relate to the inclusion of salmon and migratory trout).'.—[Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may take the following new clauses:
No. 4—Enforcement of provisions as to transshipment; No. 5—Offences committed by bodies corporate; and the following amendments:
No. 13, in line 19, at beginning insert—
'(1A) Ministers shall take powers to regulate the numbers of off-shore processing vessels in British fishery waters and their operations in such a manner as to ensure that:

(a)stock conservation and quota control is assisted, 
(b)the environment is protected, and
(c)regard is paid to the current capacity of on-shore processing." 


No. 14, in line 19, at beginning insert—
'(IB) Ministers shall be required to implement subsection (1 A) above if the authority advises that it is necessary to protect the catching and/or on-shore processing sectors of the industry.'.
Government amendments Nos 15 to 23 and 26 to 29.

Mr Buchanan-Smith: I welcome the other amendments that are being taken with the new clause, because they cover the same general points.
This is the first of the substantial new clauses that we are moving at this Report stage. It stems directly from the useful and constructive discussions that we had in Committee. As those right hon. and hon. Members who were members of the Committee will know, at that stage several amendments were tabled which sought to introduce further controls over the activities of receiving vessels in connection with the transhipment of fish. By transhipment of fish, we mean the practice whereby our own catching vessels catch the fish and transfer it to another vessel—frequently a foreign vessel, which is moored in United Kingdom waters—and that vessel carries out the further processing of the fish and subsequent export abroad.
The practice has increased in recent years in our waters off the West of Scotland and the south and South-West of England. It has gained increasing attention in recent years and has caused increasing concern to the fishing industry and to the public in general. In Committee I gave an undertaking to consider the matter further. In particular, I said that I should consider whether we should bring forward some form of licensing control for the receiving vessels and also whether receiving vessels should be guilty of an offence if a transhipment took place in contravention of an order prohibiting such transhipments.
I have given the matter careful consideration. Although we recognise that some further controls over transhipment are necessary—the Bill already contains provisions of a purely controlling nature—I am satisfied that the power to acquire receiving vessels to be licensed could be a useful additional measure of control over transhipments. I am also satisfied that it is only fair and reasonable that receiving vessels, as well as fishing vessels, should be guilty of an offence if illegal transhipments take place. It is for that reason that we tabled new clause 3, which gives Ministers the power, by order, to prohibit the receiving of fish by way of transhipment, except under the authority of a licence granted by one of the Ministers. We also tabled amendment No. 15, which makes it an offence to receive fish by transhipment in contravention of an order prohibiting such transhipment.
We have drawn this enabling power as widely as possible to permit Ministers to react to the needs of any particular circumstance. Those right hon. and hon. Members who have direct experience of transhipment will understand that circumstances do change and have changed over the years. We cannot take legislative powers every year for new circumstances. It is for that reason, and also to deal with the present situation and to anticipate future developments, that we have drawn the powers relatively widely.
Unfortunately, the result is that the new clause is somewhat long and complex. Having introduced this enabling power and the amendment related to illegal transhipments, there are many consequential amendments that need to be made to other parts of the Bill and to existing fisheries legislation to introduce appropriate offences and penalties and to give British sea fisheries officers the same enforcement powers as they have in relation to other controls. At the same time we have taken the opportunity in new clause 5 to correct an anomaly in the treatment of corporate bodies under the 1967 Act.
4 pm
New clause 5 not only applies to the powers that we are introducing in new clause 3; it goes more widely in respect of penalities generally. The clause makes it possible for the officers of a body corporate to be prosecuted for offences in relation to transhipments made by those bodies. However, it goes wider, in that it extends to offences committed in relation to licensing and prohibition orders generally. It is therefore a clause that we would have introduced regardless of the transhipments issue.
I am pleased to be able to put the new clause before the House because since I have been responsible for fisheries matters I have been conscious that this issue has given wide cause for concern. Although I am reasonably satisfied that the controls in the Bill will help us more effectively to police transhipments, particularly on

receiving vessels, we are aware that the position we are dealing with is not static. It has changed dramatically in recent years and it could change in the future.
Since we do not have the opportunity to introduce fisheries legislation every year, the pressure put on me from both sides of the Committee was only to be expected, and I am happy to respond to it. I apologise for the complexity of the clause. It relates however, to a complex matter. Bearing in mind the support the idea received in Committee, I hope that the House will accept the clause.

Mr. Strang: We regard the clause and the Minister's statement this afternoon as representing a great Labour victory for the fishing industry. When we embarked on these proceedings in Committee we had no doubt that our most important achievement for the industry would be to persuade the Government to license these vessels. The Government had received representations from many quarters before they drafted the original Bill but they steadfastly refused to incorporate these important new elements in it.
The licensing of these transhipment factory vessels—"Klondikers", as they are colloquially known in the industry—is an immense advance for that industry. It is not simply a question of achievement by Labour Members. We are grateful for the support that we received in Committee from the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and the hon. Members for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) and Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie). Other members of the Committee may also have been persuaded by the arguments that we advanced of the need for the change.
There is no doubt that the operation of these"Klondikers" has been something of a national scandal. I refer particularly to the mackerel fishery. The 1979 figures showed that two-thirds of all the mackerel caught in United Kingdom waters were sold directly to these factory ships, and therefore were not landed in British ports.
I should explain why it is so important to control and restrict—some might want to go as far as virtually to eliminate—the operation of these vessels. First, the transhipment operation, particularly involving mackerel in recent years, has involved substantial abuse of conservation measures. There is no question but that the landing of mackerel on these factory ships involved a flouting of quotas and of conservation measures. There is no doubt also that the unrestricted fishing of mackerel would have led to the decimation of these stocks in the same way as the herring stocks were allowed to be fished out. It is crucial that we protect them.
We welcome the Minister's announcement that fishing vessels over 40 ft long will have stopped mackerel fishing off the Cornish coast on 1 March. I know that the freezer trawlers will still operate in the area, but surely that provides all the more reason for having the type of licensing proposed in the clause.
The black economy has been manifesting itself in the sale of fish by our fishermen to these factory ships, which come predominantly from Eastern Europe. A somewhat remarkable report has been produced by the Institute for Fiscal Studies arguing that the black economy can be beneficial in some circumstances. I do not think that anyone is suggesting that the black economy—or what I might term"black" fish—has been good for the fishing industry.
The second reason why it is tremendously important to license the Klondikers is the enormous loss of employment and production as a direct consequence of tonnes of fish being sold directly to the factory ships and not being landed in British ports. There is an enormous wealth creation process between the stages at which fish is landed and when it is marketed. The process covers the fish market, the transporting of fish from the market to the freezer depots, the work at the freezer depots-one small such depot in my constituency has been paying off workers recently—and the transport of fish from the depots to the processing factories. There is also work in the factories and in subsequent transportation and marketing.
Therefore, the fish processing industry has been taking an enormous hammering in the past couple of years, partly as a direct consequence of the Government's monetarist policies—involving high interest rates and an overvalued pound—but partly because United Kingdom fish has not been landed in British ports or processed in British factories.
The case for licensing the Klondikers is overwhelming. There is no reference in the new clauses to balancing the amount of transhipment against our processing capacity. That approach is pursued, for example, in Canada. I hope that the Minister will say that the allocation of the licences and the extent to which he will allow transhipment to take place will be influenced by the degree of under-utilisation of our fish processing facilities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. Hamilton) raised that issue with me. A firm in his constituency—Frigoscandia—carried out a survey in 1979 and 1980 which indicated that fish processing plants in Scotland were operating at less than 20 per cent. utilisation, and that many were in danger of permanent closure. We have seen the results in Associated Fisheries. We have seen the significant decline in the British processing industry.
Another reason why the clause is a victory for the industry relates to the catchers themselves. In the short term some fishermen may feel that their opportunity to sell fish directly to factory vessels will restrict their market and will have an adverse effect on their prices, but in the long term it would be very much against their interests if our processing industry continued along the road of almost terminal decline. We need such an industry and such a market in Britain. I hope that in future we shall need that market more and more. If we begin to catch herring once again in large quantities, and a market in herring develops, I hope that the work that once existed in Scotland in the herring industry will return.
When the Minister replies, will he say something about the withdrawal of licences? The Government, if they mean business, must be prepared to withdraw licences from Klondikers that contravene British regulations. Will the Minister elaborate on the offences and penalties that will be imposed and tell us how he can make them effective against the large East German and Russian vessels and, indeed, vessels from all over the world? May we have an assurance from the Government that the licensing scheme will be established quickly? It will require an order. I trust that its drafting is now in hand. Will the Minister give undertakings about the speedy and effective implementation of the new scheme for licensing the Klondikers? It is

important to the whole industry. We welcome the Government's change of position. The whole House wants to see the matter advanced as quickly as possible.

Mr. Patrick Wall: If there is any great victory on this series of amendments, anyone who reads the report of the Second Reading debate will see that it is shared impartially by both sides of the House. I am wholly in favour of the new clauses. I want to ask the Minister one or two questions about administration. How will the clauses be administered when they become law?
The Minister knows that the distant water fleet is in a bad condition. It has been saved during the past two years only by mackerel fishing off the Cornish coast. However, we are thinking more of foreigners when discussing these clauses. British industry does not obtain much profit by selling to Eastern bloc Klondikers. My figures show that they pay about £50 a tonne for mackerel, while the fishmeal price is about £45 a tonne. Frozen mackerel sells at between £180 and £190 a tonne. Clearly we should be aiming at that. Therefore, it is a good suggestion to introduce licensing. How does the Minister intend to administer the scheme for British vessels?
4.15 pm
I wish to quote one sentence from a letter that I received from a major firm in Hull. It states:
A positive Government policy would have enabled the United Kingdom vessels to have their freezing capacity increased allowing them to spend part of the year fishing and part klondiking. Such production would, obviously, have increased the period of time during which UK mackerel would be available to supply world demand.
Transhipment is important for the distant water vessels. How does the Minister intend to help them through his legislation? Does he agree that if we had better processing and freezing facilities in Britain more mackrel could be landed and it would not need to be sold to foreigners?

Mr. Grimond: When the Minister drafts the orders, will he watch two points? First, the new clause as drafted is complicated and lengthy. It also goes very wide, as the Minister admitted. Will he take care that it does not catch ordinary fish carriers trading between the Islands and other ports? It is not necessary to license them, but the clause would give him the power to do so. Although licensing may be necessary, administration expenses should be kept to the minimum.
If the order is introduced, is the Minister confident that he will have the means to enforce it? The order could refer to fish caught by a specified method. There is already anxiety in the industry about the enforcement of limits. It is doubtful whether there are enough fishery cruisers and other methods of enforcement. Is the Minister satisfied that there will be the means to enforce the orders if they are passed?

Mr. Iain Sproat: I want to say two things to my hon. Friend the Minister. First, I very much welcome the proposals that he has brought forward this afternoon. He was reacting directly to the wishes of the Committee. I congratulate him on the speed with which he did so. Secondly, I was astonished that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang), who is usually so moderate and generous in these matters should talk about the new clauses as a Labour victory. I tabled an amendment, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie). We both spoke to the amendments.
I was under the impression that both sides of the Committee had pointed out how, first, conservation had been damaged; secondly, how the British processing industry had been damaged; and, thirdly, how essential it was to license the Klondikers. When my hon. Friend the Minister replied in Committee I received the impression that he took the argument as an all-Committee point and that he would bring forward a new clause at the appropriate time. He has done so. It is what we on the Conservative side pressed for. To talk about it as a Labour victory is not only ridiculous; it is demeaning to the industry. We have all worked together on this issue. We have all been successful. The industry has benefited. We should take party politics out of the matter.

Mr. James Johnson: As I sit on the Opposition Benches these days I am happy to welcome any Labour victories. Let us be sensible and say that it is a victory for common sense on both sides of the Committee."Klondiking" is a somewhat poetic and romantic word, but in the past few months it has acquired almost an evil connotation.
I speak as a Hull MP. We in Hull have had some stick over this, not merely from fishermen off the South-West peninsula but from ill-informed people all over the country who seem to think that Klondiking consists of Communist vessels coming into the English Channel, mooring 12-15 miles, or sometimes 6 miles, off the coast and then getting stuck in to fish for mackerel. I make it clear that whatever was done in the past was done legally. It has been legitimate for the vessels, whether from Hull, Fleetwood or anywhere else, to anchor off these shores, catch the fish and then tranship their catch on the water to, say, a Polish vessel or any other vessel, even an Egyptian vessel, which was willing to pay in the market for the fish.
A term was used a few minutes ago which to me is almost insidious. There was a reference to the black market. There is no black market in open exchanges on the water. I should like to see all the fish caught by our vessels landed at our ports, on our quaysides, thus giving employment to workers on shore. What has been happening has been legitimate, and"Klondiking" is a poetic word that can be forgotten.
When the Minister replies to the debate, will he make quite clear what he means by licensing? I am sure that he knows as well as I do that this has caused a lot of perturbation to Hull fishing owners, skippers and deck hands because they did not know how long they were staying to fish. Let us be explicit, so that when men leave the Humber, or anywhere else, they know that they are going to fish for a month, or more or less, and can get down to the job of catching the fish. When I hear words like"black market","black economy","scandal" and so forth, I do not think that it is good enough. Our people have to catch the fish. They have been doing that and selling it in public.

Mr. Strang: I was not meaning to slight the constituents of my hon. Friend, but I think that he will recognise that substantial amounts of fish have been sold direct to foreign vessels. It is widely believed that cash payments have been made to these fishermen. Indeed, there has been some suggestion that all of that cash may not have been declared. Furthermore, the Minister himself in opening the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill used the word"abuse" in relation to transhipment.

Mr. Johnson: This all sounds to me like buying Argentinian footballers and putting them in the Second Division with Hull City. I hope, all that apart, that the Minister will make clear what he means by licensing.
Last season about 300,000 tonnes of mackerel were caught off the South-West peninsula. Can the Minister specify what amounts he deems sensible and wise for conservation purposes? Will he then tell us which sections of the fleet will be getting these licences and for what length of time? In view of the past confusion and feeling of unfairness amongst owners in Hull about this, it is important that he makes it explicit and puts it on the line.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: I welcome the clause which arose, among other proposals put down by the Opposition, from an amendment put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) and myself. I was sorry that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) was endeavouring to take the total credit for this. I have always looked at fishing as a bipartisan subject. I agree that the hon. Member supported it, but in his earlier remarks he appeared to indicate that this was a Labour proposal and that it was they who had managed to get the Minister to change this. However, I do not wish to be partisan. I am sure that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) would be one of the first Members to welcome the view that fishing should be a bipartisan subject.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Bipartisan?

Mr. McQuarrie: I am not partisan. I take the point that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) endeavours to make from a sitting position.

Mr. McNamara: I am sorry if I offended the hon. Gentleman. All I am saying is that bipartisan policies in this House have always meant that we have had to agree with the Tory Party, on the Common Market or anything else.

Mr. McQuarrie: That might not be bad policy.
I support the speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East in respect of the processing industry. If we are to control the Klondikers or those vessels that process fish offshore, it is absolutely vital that sufficient resources should be landed for our processing factories. One of the problems that is being created at the quayside is the low price of fish. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East rightly said, that is where the black economy starts.
Despite the honesty that no doubt exists in most parts of the fishing industry, in whatever sphere we think of in the world there are always people who are prepared to take a little extra on the side if they can get it. The fishing industry is no different, although, as I say, those involved in it are traditionally honest. There are always a few"black" people around who are prepared to take"black" money, as there are in any industry. It is only fair to say that the fishing industry would admit that. The industry is as anxious as we are to ensure that licensing of this nature takes place.
The Minister's decision to table the new clauses will be welcomed not only by those of us who served on the Committee and who endeavoured to get him to come to the view that he has now reached in bringing forward these proposals, but by the fishing and processing industries. I trust that the House generally will support this proposal as


those of us on the Government Benches who have spoken and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East who spoke on behalf of the Opposition have done.

Mr. Donald Stewart: I, too, welcome the tabling of the new clause. I was surprised that originally nothing was done about this subject in the Bill, since the matter had become a great bone of contention. There was a lot of anger and resentment at the way in which the system was being abused. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) that Klondiking of itself has a respectable pedigree. When I was a boy, the fishermen welcomed the arrival of Klondikers. It was an excellent market and they were delighted to see them. So the system in itself is not inherently evil and there is nothing wrong with it as such.
Undoubtedly there have been breaches. For the protection of the mackerel stocks and of the processors on land it was obvious that something had to be done about it. Since I was not represented on the Committee I am unable to claim that this was a victory for my party. I am content to follow the example of the non-partisan Members who have already spoken and welcome it on behalf of the fishing industry.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I was rather surprised at the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) in claiming this as a Labour victory. I have taken the opportunity while sitting on the Government Front Bench to remind myself of what was said in the debate in Committee. It is rather interesting that, out of four Members who spoke in Committee, apart from myself there were two Members from the Conservative Benches, and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East was the only Member from the Labour Benches who spoke on this. Therefore, the number of Labour abstentions was very large.

Mr. McNamara: Mr. McNamara rose—

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I shall give way in a moment. I am always happy to give way, particularly to the hon. Gentleman.
I prefer to adopt the approach of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) and the right hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart). I simply put this forward as a sensible measure which had the support of the Committee and has the support of the House. It is in that spirit that I have proposed it.

Mr. McNamara: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not relying on the number of hon. Members who speak on every clause as a degree of support or otherwise, is he? If so, he will not get to his bed tonight.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I thought that I should put the record straight.
I endorse what was said by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West and the right hon. Member for the Western Isles about there being nothing wrong with transhipment. There is nothing evil about it.
I wholly agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East about more British companies' shore-based facilities taking advantage of the processing opportunities offered by mackerel and herring fishing. Let us be under no illusions. No matter how pelagic fishing is

organised—whether for herring, sprats or mackerel—I do not see how we could have sufficient shore-based processing facilities to service a seasonal fishery without processing capacity being under-utilised for large periods of the year. Even if the Government put in massive funds, we could not get a proper return on the investment because of the physical nature of the way that this fishery is undertaken.
That is why over the years this tradition of Klondiking and transhipment has built up. It is a good thing. Without it we would not be able to cope with the harvest that the sea offers of these pelagic species. If we did not have these factory vessels to process the fish at the appropriate time, our fishermen would not get a proper return for their fish and our processing factories would not have any advantage. We must get this matter in perspective. That is why I endorse strongly what has been said about it.
Our domestic market, given its size, is unable to cope with what is produced out of this fishery during the short time that it takes place. Much of it has to go for export, which is an opportunity made available by some of these factory vessels and transhipment. Therefore, there is nothing basically or fundamentally wrong with Klondiking or transhipment as it takes place now and as it has taken place in the past.
We took the powers in the Bill initially in order to control better the way in which the transhipment takes place. The Government did not ignore this matter. I think that the right hon. Member for the Western Isles would agree that this is a question not of licensing or not licensing, but of control. If there have been abuses—I believe that there have been abuses, and some of the problems have been in the identification of those abuses—we need additional control. That is why originally we took the power to control. We brought in more powers to inspect—to go aboard vessels to find out what is going on. That will be more effective than licensing to ensure that abuses do not take place.
We have now, so to speak, approached the matter by two stages. The first stage was in the Bill as originally published, and I think that is the most important part of it. The control measures are more important than anything else, and we included those in the Bill originally.
As a result of pressure in Committee, we have now taken further powers which will enable us to license and to take the opportunity referred to by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East of being able to go much wider. In future we may be able to take a broader view of balancing shore-based facilities for processing against the facilities of vessels which receive. I do not want to deceive the House in any way. The control measures, if we are to have proper conservation, are more important than any measures that we may take on licensing.
I was asked specific questions on the new clause and I shall now seek to answer them. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East asked whether licences could be withdrawn. Of course they can be withdrawn. The Minister has taken the power to issue licences, and he also has the power to withdraw them. That power will also exist for the courts. If a licence is contravened, the court will have power to remove the licence.
The hon. Gentleman asked about penalties. We have followed the precedents on illegal fishing. Receiving fish without a licence or in contravention of a prohibition on


transhipping would be subject to a maximum fine of £50,000 on summary conviction. I emphasise that this is no light matter. It is backed up by proper penalties.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) asked how, if we introduced licensing, we would ensure that we did not inadvertently cover areas that we did not intend to cover. We have the power to make the order subject to exemptions. I assure him that we would be sensitive to the point that he made if we considered introducing a licensing scheme.
I turn now to the more general points. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East asked when and how we would introduce these powers and my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) asked how we would administer them. These points were implicit in many of the speeches to which I listened. I emphasise that in the new clause we are taking enabling powers. Therefore, we would have to introduce the licensing scheme by order. I have no immediate plans to introduce a licensing scheme as such. First, only a short time has elapsed since we decided to introduce this enabling power. Therefore, I should like to give it a great deal more thought.
Secondly, we have already introduced powers of control. Therefore, in terms of trying to stop abuses and to ensure that transhipment takes place responsibly and properly, particularly in the light of our conservation measures, we should first see how those control measures work. It is silly to take powers in response to popular feeling or even where there is a genuine need when we have power:; available in the Bill as drafted to deal with the main abuses. Therefore, I should make it clear that I have no immediate intention of introducing a licensing scheme as such. But these enabling powers will enable us to assess the position. In the light of our experience of how the control measures work or in furtherance of any new conservation measures, we could then introduce a licensing scheme.

Mr, Wall: Mr, Wall rose—

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I now come specifically to the point on which I anticipate my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice is seeking to intervene. I give him and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland an undertaking that, before introducing any scheme, we shall consult all those with interests in it. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West also referred to this matter. We shall consult those companies with interests which have vessels capable of receiving transhipped fish. We shall also consult those with processing interests. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) speaks very strongly for those interests in the House. Obviously, we would also consult the catching side of the industry, because it has a tremendous financial interest in what happens to transhipment. We shall also have to take account of overseas interests.
I cannot respond directly to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East by saying what kind of scheme we would introduce or when we would introduce such a scheme. We have taken the enabling power so that at the appropriate time, after we have seen how our control measures work, and even then only after consulting all the interests involved, we may bring forward a licensing scheme.
I hope that I have not only helped to clarify the points raised in this debate, but made clear the circumstancs in which a licensing scheme might be introduced in

furtherance of the enabling powers which we have taken before us. I thank the House for the welcome which it has given to the new clause. We are right to take those powers, but we should not forget the service which the Klondiking and transhipment of fish provides to the British fishing industry.

Mr. McNamara: I am grateful for being allowed to take up some of the time of the House. I can restore the balance of speakers on the clause; because it would be unfortunate if it were to go through with the feeling that there is not the support for the measure for which the Minister is rightly looking. In fact, the Labour Party strongly supports the new proposal.
The public and the consumer have been aware of one matter relative to Klondiking. In the past, scenes have been portrayed of fish being caught and transhipped, often outside our territorial waters and often to foreign vessels, of species that are on sale by British fishmongers at an enormous price. We have been told that that has taken place because of the better price that the fishermen have been able to obtain for selling in bulk to foreign vessels—mainly Eastern European vessels. If the system of control of licences is likely to produce—as I hope it will—a system whereby the British consumer and housewife have a better price for fish at the fishmongers, and if some of the recent exorbitant prices come down as a result of proper licensing and controls, these measures will be welcome.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 4

ENFORCEMENT OF PROVISIONS AS TO TRANS-SHIPMENT

"(1) For the purpose of enforcing the provisions of an order under section 4A or 6(1A) of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 or the condition of any licence granted under section 4A of that Act, a British sea-fishery officer may exercise in relation to any vessel (whether British or foreign) within British fishery limits the powers conferred by the following provisions of this section.

(2) He may go on board the vessel, with or without persons assigned to assist him in his duties, and for that purpose may require the vessel to stop and do anything else which will facilitate the boarding of the vessel.

(3) He may require the attendance of the master and other persons on board the vessel and may make any examination and inquiry which appears to him to be necessary for the purpose mentioned in subsection (1) above.

(4) Where it appears to him that a contravention of the order or a breach of a condition of the licence has at any time taken place he may—


(a)require the master of the vessel in relation to which the contravention took place to take, or may himself take, the vessel and its crew to the port which appears to him to be the nearest convenient port, and
(b)detain or require the master to detain the vessel in the port; and if he detains or requires the detention of the vessel he will serve on the master a notice in writing stating that the vessel will be or is required to be detained until the notice is withdrawn by the service on the master of a further notice in writing signed by a British sea-fishery officer.'— [Mr. Buchanan-Smith]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 5

OFFENCES COMMITTED BY BODIES CORPORATE

'In section 12 of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 (offences committed by bodies corporate) after"sections 3", there shall be inserted"4, 4A, 5".'.—[Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 6

CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE

'(1) For the purpose of giving advice to the Authority about the exercise and performance of their functions generally, there shall be a sea fish industry authority consultative committee, which shall number at least 15 and not exceed 20 people.

(2) The consultative committee shall consist of a chairman who shall be such member of the Authority as may from time to time be appointed by the Authority, and of such other members as may be appointed by Ministers to represent the interests of the different sections of the fish industry and any other such interests (including those of persons employed in the industry) as Ministers may consider to be affected.

(3) Before appointing to the consultative committee a member to represent any such interests as aforesaid, Ministers shall consult such bodies, if any, as appear to them to be representative of the interests concerned.

(4) Ministers should endeavour to ensure that a substantial number of the members are drawn from the representative organisations of the industry.

(5) Ministers should endeavour to ensure a fair geographical representation which reflects the diverse nature of the fishing industry.

(6) The Authority shall appoint a person employed by them to act as secretary to the consultative committee.'.—[Mr. Strang.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Strang: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I suggest that we consider at the same time Government amendment No. 1.

Mr. Strang: In Committee we decided that the structure of the proposed authority was unsatisfactory. We made an important change, which we believed would enable the authority to operate more effectively. I hesitate to describe that Government defeat as an Opposition victory. I do not want to offend the sensibilities of the hon. Members for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) and Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie), who abstained in the Division and enabled us to carry that important change.
The Government have had time to think about that important aspect of the Bill, as have their Back Benchers. I expect that there have been some comings and goings between hon. Members and Ministers. I am sure that there have been discussions between the Government and representatives of the industry. I should like to think that as a result of that defeat in Committee the Government took the issue sufficiently seriously to reappraise the situation and reconsider whether the structure that they had proposed was right. They have now decided to attempt to reverse the change that was made in Committee. We regret that decision.
4.45 pm
I shall briefly reconsider the establishment of the Sea Fish Industry Authority. At the outset the Government had to decide whether to amalgamate the Herring Industry Board and the White Fish Authority to create a new authority, or to take those functions back into Government and charge the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food with the responsibility of carrying out all the functions that the Bill will give to the Sea Fish Industry Authority. I believe that there was a case—it was not one which, on balance, the Opposition pursued—for doing so.
There was a case for not establishing a major quango. The Government's determination to reverse the changes made in Committee makes it a bigger quango than it would otherwise have been. I do not wish to make too much of that point. I do not wish to embarrass the Minister, but that option was open to the Government. It was supported by some sections of the industry and by at least one major fishermen's organisation.
The Opposition accept that the Government were right to opt for a Sea Fish Industry Authority. We argued successfully in Committee that we wanted an authority with a tighter, more committed membership. We wanted an independent authority, not one where sectional interests were directly represented, but one of six members, which we believed would have been cohesive. They could have been chosen by the Government. They could have been a more effective executive for this organisation than the larger authority that was proposed by the Government in the initial Bill.
The Government have decided to go back to the proposed 12-member authority, eight of whom will be representatives of the industry. I do not believe that the Minister will satisfy the industry as a whole with eight members. At Heathrow airport this week I bumped into a few representatives of the fishing industry. It was obvious that at least one of those distinguished representatives felt that he had a good chance of serving on the authority. I believe that he should be a member of the authority if the Government are successful in reversing the decision taken in Committee.
There may have been a failure by the Government to reappraise the issue sufficiently and to say to the industry that they know that a number of its representatives had it in mind to serve on the authority and that many of the organisations said that they would like to be directly represented on the authority, but in the light of the vote in Committee and of the arguments raised by hon. Members there the Government believe that a smaller, more independent authority will be more effective.
I cannot see how the different sections of the industry can be properly represented under the scheme that the Government propose. Clearly, the trade unions must be represented on the authority. The processing sector, which is enormously important, must be represented. The fishermen's organisations, the catchers' organisation, must have representation on the authority. Which fishermen's organisations will be represented? The deep-sea fishermen and the inshore fishermen surely will, but what about geographical representation? In Committee we took the view that not only should the different sections of industry be represented, but that there should be a genuine geographical representation on the authority.
It is still our view that the Government will fail to achieve the desired objective on the basis of eight members out of the 12 on the authority. That is why, in addition to the important change in the composition of the authority, the Opposition advocated in Committee—and advocate again now in new clause 6—the establishment of a consultative committee. The consultative committee would consist of 15 to 20 members—in my view, probably nearer 20 than 15—as representatives of the industry.

Mr. Wall: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument closely, but I cannot see how, with a membership of 20, he will bring in all those in the industry


whom he wants to be represented. If he has geographical representation, the total is more likely to be 70 than 20. Will he explain his figure of 20?

Mr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman would have a point only in the sense that there would be a problem if one were trying to represent every individual section. I do not regard that as practical. Indeed, I should be against a very large assembly almost as it was in the case of the White Fish Authority, which really had no clout. One has to strike a balance or draw a line. I think that eight is not practical. Incidentally, I think it wrong also that there should be those with direct vested interests on the authority, but, leaving that aside, I argue that we shall be more likely to secure fairer representation, a representation more acceptable to the industry, on the basis of 15 to 20 members than on a basis of eight.
We believe that the consultative committee will have real status in the industry. With 15 to 20 members, we are not talking about a large amorphous body. It will be a committee on which the organisations will be represented. The authority will be dependent on the advice of that committee, and it will speak for the industry.
We attach great importance to the organisations themselves, and the establishment of a consultative committee would in no way pre-empt a direct dialogue in some instances between the different organisations in the industry and the authority. Certainly there would be no question of the consultative committee's usurping or replacing the dialogue between the industry and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It is to the Government's credit that they have carried on the continuing and genuine dialogue between the fishing organisations and Ministers in relation to the development of the industry and, in particular, the negotiations in Brussels.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) initiated that relationship with the industry, and the present Minister has continued it. We believe that the Government are right to work closely with the industry in Brussels in the important negotiations on the common fisheries policy. It would be out of order now to discuss the common fisheries policy, and I merely make that point in the present context.
It seems to us that the Government have shown a lack of courage here, and we shall be interested to hear the views of their Back Benchers. I am not sure whether they have succeeded in persuading those who were members of the Committee on this issue. I regret that they intend to use their majority, or attempt to use it, in this Chamber to reverse a change which was made by the Standing Committee and which, in our view, would have given the authority a much better start than will the method proposed by the Government.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Although I recognise that this is a matter of broad interest throughout the House, I think that it may be of assistance if I intervene now, especially since we are considering Government amendment No. 1 with the new clause.
I repeat at the outset—I said it in Committee and, I think, on Second Reading—that I do not believe that there is any clear-cut view as to which form of authority would be best. There are arguments on both sides. Should we have an authority, as we have at present in the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board, which is small

in membership and comprising only independent members, or should we, as the Government proposed in the Bill as originally drafted—and as we propose in our amendment No. 1—have a somewhat larger authority which, in addition to the independent members, will comprise a number of representatives of the industry? It is a matter of judgment. I put it no higher than that. I do not claim that either our solution or the one which the Opposition advocate is necessarily or obviously the right one.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) said that our approach to the matter was to produce an even bigger quango. That is not true. The principal feature of a quango is that there are upon it individuals who are completely independent of the task which they seek to perform. If anything, what we propose is less of a quango in the generally accepted sense in that it will have upon it representatives of the industry which the authority will seek to serve.
Second, the hon. Gentleman said that we had failed to reappraise the situation since our proceedings in Committee. I assure him that there has been no such failure. Not only since the Committee proceedings but over the many weeks since we first dealt with the matter in Committee, I have taken trouble to consult the main interests involved. I can advise the hon. Gentleman and the House that the broad view of the industry and of the main organisations has remained in support of the view which the Government presented in the Bill as originally drafted and as now proposed in our amendment No. 1—in other words, that we should have this rather larger authority within which there would be representatives of the industry.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has more than once given a very firm and gratifying undertaking that the authority as proposed to be constituted will comprise at least one Ulsterman representing that section of the fishing industry. Will it be easier or more difficult for the Minister to discharge that undertaking with an authority of six members or of 12?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I assure the right hon. Gentleman categorically that it is easier with a body of 12 than it would be with one of six. Moreover, one can be certain that in the discharge of the undertaking to which he referred one will more likely be able to get someone who is representative of the fishing industry in Northern Ireland. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support in that respect.
Third, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East accused Ministers and the Government of a lack of courage in simply bringing back the Bill as it was. I assert the precise opposite. It is the hon. Gentleman who is lacking in courage. He is the one remaining with the status quo of an independent body as we have had with the authorities serving the fishing industry up to now. What the Government propose—and we emphasise this in amendment No. 1—breaks new ground by bringing into this body representatives of the fishing industry who are not represented on existing bodies.
5 pm
I shall not repeat all of the arguments adduced on Second Reading and in Committee. All that we are doing is bringing this body into line, for example, with similar bodies in agriculture where representatives of the industry


are included. Therefore, if there is any question of courage, I believe that it requires more courage to break new ground. As I said at earlier stages, I think that there is a great deal behind the hon. Gentleman's argument. In an industry of wide geographical differences, as well as differences in terms of deep-sea and inshore fishing, catchers and processors, merchants and retailers, I accept that one takes a certain risk in setting up an organisation on which so many bodies will seek representation.
Clearly, as the hon. Gentleman quite fairly said, it will be impossible for everyone in the industry to be represented on the authority. Nevertheless, this has been achieved and has worked in agriculture, where there are similar bodies on which not everybody is represented. I believe that that industry is mature enough and sufficiently well organised to accept the challenge and responsibility of providing members from the industry to serve on the authority. If a particular organisation or corner of the industry is not represented on the authority, they would still rather have some representatives from the industry included because this gives the industry rather more say in what happens.
I therefore believe that rather more courage is required to go in that direction than to rely upon the status quo.

Mr. Roy Mason: If, as we believe, the Minister intends to force this through the House, to reverse the decision taken in Committee and to revert to what was originally introduced in the Bill and in his Second Reading speech, namely, that there shall be 12 members—we do not know whether they will all be full-time—including four independent members and eight representatives of the fishing industry, may I take it from what he has said that he is now committed to putting one person from the Northern Ireland fishing industry on the authority?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am saying that there will certainly be one person from Northern Ireland on the authority. In what part of the authority that person would be, I do not know. But it is inconceivable that there should not be a member from Northern Ireland on the authority. I respond directly and with pleasure. One might consider an independent member from Northern Ireland. I said that on the authority there would certainly be one person from Northern Ireland.
As I have said, I do not wish to delay the House. We have had some very full debates on this subject. Certainly those who served on the Committee or who have read the report of its debates will realise my views on it. I return to the point that I made a moment ago. Since the Committtee stage, I have taken the opportunity to discuss this very fully with those concerned. I have not, of course, been able to conduct all the discussions personally, but I have had consultations carried out in the industry. There is certainly no real change of view among the main organisations in the industry from that which was expressed to us when the original proposals of the Bill were discussed more widely during the past year. I have to report to the House that the result of these consultations is that all the major organisations which were originally in favour of the form of authority that we originally proposed remain in favour of that form of authority. I understand that they have indeed written to Members in support of their views.
I summarise briefly, under four main heads, the reasons why we originally introduced the idea of an authority that is partly independent and partly representative of the industry, and why we wish to maintain that position.
First, we must ensure that the authority commands the confidence and respect of the industry. I believe that we are more likely to do that if representatives of the industry serve on the authority. I refer the House to the debates just over a year ago on raising the levy of the White Fish Authority. I believe that there was a certain gap of confidence at that time. Certainly a number of individuals put it to me at that time that an authority which included representatives of the industry would be more likely to have the respect and confidence of the industry. That type of situation, I fear, will occur again in the future. It happens whenever a levy has to be raised, because nobody likes to pay levies. There is therefore a strain on relations at the time. I believe that it is helpful to the industry if, when such decisions are taken, some of the industry's own representatives are party to the decision. People in the industry then know that their views have been taken into account in any proposal that is put forward.
Secondly—and this follows on from my first reason—I believe that those who have to pay a levy should also have some say in how that levy is spent. I believe that that is a simple matter of principle rather than simply a matter of confidence and respect.
Thirdly, the authority has an important task to carry out. It has to bring together an industry comprising many different elements. I believe that bringing representatives of the industry together as part of the decision-making process—I emphasise that it is the decision-making process, not the consultative process—will enable the authority to carry out its task very much more effectively.
Fourthly, no matter how great or how good some of the independent members appointed to the authority may be, the authority has to work in a particular area where it is helpful to have technical knowledge and expertise. It is sometimes difficult to find people who are independent but who can also bring to the work of an authority such as this a certain knowledge and expertise in technical matters. The tasks of the authority are complex and difficult, and they are specific to one industry—the fishing industry. I therefore believe that it is helpful to have on the authority representatives who have practical experience and knowledge of that industry.
For all those reasons, therefore, I believe that what we propose in amendment No. 1 is an improvement on the amendment which was adopted in Committee and which is carried further by the new clause.
The hon. Gentleman quite fairly argued that for the kind of authority that he wished to see there should be a consultative committee. I make two points in relation to that. First, in a consultative committee of the kind suggested—I know that this is true of the existing consultative committees of the White Fish Authority—a fairly large number of people are brought together somewhat infrequently. I know that many people do not feel a sense of involvement simply because their function is purely consultative. I therefore do not believe that the kind of consultative committee suggested in the hon. Gentleman's new clause would in any sense answer the needs that the industry feels and which I outlined a moment ago.
Secondly, if the new authority wanted consultative committees—and I would hope that they would be small


in terms of numbers—in relation to particular problems or sections of the industry, the Bill contains powers for the authority to set up such consultative committees in its own way.
Therefore, while I appreciate that the Opposition's new clause is put forward in a constructive sense, I must advise the House not to support it. On reflection, as well as on the evidence of the further consultation that I have had carried out. and, perhaps most of all, simply on the strength of the arguments that I put forward at earlier stages and which I have sought to summarise today, I believe that we should do better to restore the authority to the position in which it was when the Bill was introduced, namely, that of an authority made up partly of independent members and partly of representatives of the industry.
I therefore ask the House to reject the Opposition's new clause and to agree to amendment No. 1.

Mr. Grimond: I am glad that the Minister responded to the suggestion made in Committee by that shrewd man the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) that the Minister should occasionally speak earlier in debates and explain the Government's attitude to new clauses and amendments. That he has kindly done. I do not dissent from his view that the arguments are nicely balanced. However, I have come down rather more in favour of the views of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) than I did even in Committee.
I believe that the views of the industry are difficult to obtain. I accept that the Minister has probably received support from major bodies in the industry for his own suggestion. I must put on record the fact that I have received support from other bodies in the industry for the contrary suggestion. I do not know which view is the more valid.
The crux of the matter is that we must choose between an authority of 12, which will contain representatives of those engaged in the industry, and a smaller authority with a large consultative committee. I do not deny that there is a strong case for including people engaged in the industry. However, I do deny that because people are not engaged in the industry they are ignorant about fishing. I am sure that we could find independent members who would be well versed in the ways of the industry. The nub of the debate is that people on many parts of the coast, including the coast in my constituency, feel that with an authority of 12 they will not be represented.
It was interesting that the Minister came clean, but only in an interjection, by saying that he has already promised one place to Northern Ireland. I tried to persuade the Committee that the House of Commons should have more say about, and more knowledge of, who will be appointed to these quangos and how. I hope that the Minister will now tell us whether he is committed to appointing people from other areas. Important as Northern Ireland is relative to the population, fishing is far more important to Shetland—it is absolutely vital to certain islands—than it is to the economy of Northern Ireland. How many more authority places will be given away before the Bill even reaches the statute book?
I am not wholly addicted to the idea of consultative committees, nor am I addicted to the setting up of quangos or authorities which, whether they are bigger or smaller, will be more expensive than the two quangos which they will replace. I feel that the original proposals of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East would allow for a smaller and

more economical authority and a consultative committee which would meet some of the feelings of the different sections of the industry which fear that their views will not be properly represented when the authority takes decisions.
The Minister on several occasions quoted the agriculture industry as an example. I maintain that the agriculture industry is quite different. In Committee the Minister made an eloquent speech about the dangers and possibilities of licensing. He properly warned us that the licensing proposed under fishing legislation is a general licence to remove a man's livelihood. As he said in Committee, it is one thing to say"You may not fish for mackerel", but it is quite another thing to say"You will not get a licence to fish at all".
We are proposing to set up an authority which, although it may not do the actual licensing, could well administer it and could well have a powerful say in the licensing scheme that is introduced. That does not happen in agriculture. In addition, agriculture does not have communities with no hinterland which are wholly dependent on fishing. Therefore, I do not accept the Minister's analogy with the agriculture industry.
Frankly, the decision is a narrow one. Whether or not we have a consultative committee—I appreciate that there are objections to that, one of which I raised, which is that it may preclude the authority from taking advice on specialised matters from throughout the industry—nevertheless, a smaller independent authority with a wider area of consultation would on balance best suit the fishing communities in my constituency.
If we accept the Minister's proposal, there must be a clear understanding that the new authority will continue the practice of the present authority and go outside official channels and consult widely throughout the industry. Like no doubt other hon. Members, I have received a letter from the chairman of the White Fish Authority on certain points in the Bill. I very much welcome that and I pay tribute to his close attention to all the views of the industry. However, I do not believe that all sections or areas engaged in fishing will be entirely happy if they are not represented on the authority unless they can have a greater assurance that consultation will be extremely wide and frequent on matters that are absolutely vital to the livelihood of individuals and to the survival of certain communities.

Mr. McQuarrie: I intervene briefly to deal with clause 1 specifically. In Committee I opposed the Government's recommendations relating to that clause. I did so, not because I objected to the number of members, which I accepted should be 12, but because I was concerned about the factors set out in clause 2 relating to the functions of the authority. I was concerned that the four independent members would have total control of the financial provisions, to the exclusion of the other eight members.
I am sorry that the Minister has not seen fit to take cognisance of that factor. I am still extremely concerned that the eight members who will be appointed from within the fishing industry will have no say in the financial provisions that will be apportioned by the new authority. I hope that the Minister will at least consider this matter again, because it is important.
As I said, I accepted the suggestion of an authority of 12 and did not accept the suggestion that the numbers


should be reduced to six. That view is recorded in the report of the Committee proceedings. I said categorically that I could not support the clause at that stage because of the restriction that was being placed on the eight fishing industry members of the authority. I hope that on reflection the Minister will take that point on board. I hope that he will bear in mind the points that I made in Committee. Perhaps he will indicate whether there will be some discussion between the fishing industry members and the four independent members before there is any question of finality with regard to the financial provisions.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I support new clause 6 and oppose amendment No. 1. I found heartrending the picture painted by the Minister of the blood, sweat, toil and tears involved in returning to what he thought of in the first place before the consultations began. After our decision in Committee to reverse his proposal, it seems that the mountains have since laboured and have produced not a mouse but a pilchard. In effect, the Minister has come forward with the proposal that we started out with and which we rejected.
I have certainly received no mail in support of the Government's proposal. In his consultations about the composition of the authority, I wonder whether the Minister got the same reaction which some Labour Members received, which was strongly critical of the whole Bill. The Scarborough and Bridlington Fish Producers' Organisation states:
we no way share the euphoria of many MPs which was evident in the debate on 12 January 1981, that this Bill is an enormous step forward".
The Grimsby Fishing Vessel Owners' Association said:
much of the industry has not been exactly enchanted with the White Fish Authority".
It spread some of that disenchantment onto the new authority.
The Cornish Fish Producers Organisation Ltd. said:
Having seen Hansard … the CFPO is very worried to read how complacment nearly all those contributing to the debate were … The non-catching part of the industry hardly seems to have expressed an opinion either way".
Therefore, it is unreasonable to say that the industry is strongly in favour of reversing the decision that we took in Committee. It has real doubts about the relevance of an authority with such wide powers and with such increased stature. In some sections of the industry there is a strong preference for a direct relationship with the Ministry rather than with this new authority. The numbers on the authority are not adequate, and will not allow the authority to win the industry's confidence. On the contrary, the authority might be able to divide and rule within the industry. Indeed, the Government pioneered that tactic in their relationship with the industry over the Common Market.
I emphasise that three fundamental problems are involved in the authority's composition which have not been solved by the Minister's proposals. The first problem is the most basic: who is to be included in the representation? There are to be eight representatives from a very diverse industry. The industry is fragmented not only into skills, but also into roles. For example, the catching, merchanting, distribution and fish processing sides are all involved. The industry is also divided between the unions and the owners.
Indeed, it is fragmented even more into geographical areas. The problem cannot be solved by providing eight

representatives. Indeed, it would be as difficult to solve one problem in that way as it would be to solve the dilemma of angels dancing on the point of a pin. Any attempt to fit such a diverse industry into the straitjacket of eight representatives will prove to be forlorn.
Growing unity has been shown in the industry as a result of its determination to check the Government's headlong rush into sacrificing its best interests to the Common Market. The industry has come together more in its attempts to impose some restraint on the Government's propensity to give away so much of the industry's future to the Common Market. However, the Common Market negotiotions have reached a stage at which that precarious unity is beginning to fall apart. The industry faces the dilemma of French vessels—as well as Belgian vessels and others—being admitted within our 12-mile limit. That brings to the fore the geographical differences within the industry. It also highlights the differences between the inshore and the deep water sections of the industry. Until now those differences have been latent.
It is proposed that there should be a box round the Islands, with reserved fishing for local fishermen. That proposal has given rise to a deep gulf between Scottish and English fishermen. If there were to be such a box, and if foreign vessels were also to be excluded from the 12-mile zone around Scotland, the burden of fishing effort would fall disproportionately on those waters that have been traditionally fished not only by the fishermen of Grimsby but by those of England as a whole. As a result, the industry would fragment once again on geographical lines, despite the precarious unity that had built up as a result of the Common Market negotiations.
It is unrealistic to imagine that the industry is sufficiently united to be satisfied with eight representatives. It would be dissatisfied even if we were to ignore the other problems. The Minister has still not committed himself on the question of how many representatives will come from the catching side of the industry, which is the most important side. Again, that side of the industry is itself divided. What provision will there be for representation from the Transport and General Workers Union? The union has a specific role. It has strong and responsible views on safety, and decasualisation, arid on the role of fishermen.
The Minister gave a commitment that the authority would include a representative from Northern Ireland. What other specific commitments have been made to the industry? What hopes have been held out to it, to the effect that certain sections will be represented on the new authority? At present, bait is being dangled in a most undesirable way.
I am not satisfied that eight will prove adequately representative of the industry, or that the divergent elements in the industry can be brought together on such a basis. If that is to be the authority's constitution, the eight representatives will be brought straight into the political arena. The authority will be involved in decisions about licensing. Geographical arguments and arguments between the different sections of the industry will have to be fought out in the authority. As a result, a divisive situation will arise.
It is important to note that the legislation proposes that the eight representatives should be excluded from certain financial functions. On what basis do the Government draw a distinction between those functions, and, for example, licensing functions? Those functions are just as


difficult and divisive. The sections can disagree in exactly the same way. There is a danger that political and geographical divisions will be created between the eight representatives.
If the Government are to hand over to an independent authority functions that they should fulfil themselves they should hand them to a dynamic and effective authority. The best way to ensure that it is dynamic and effective is to create a smaller authority, which has a larger consultative body. The industry could then be brought together and could adopt the attitudes and express the aspirations of a united industry. Such representation would be better than the rather half-hearted attempt presented by the Bill.
I accept the Minister's argument that there is a fine balance between the choices, but we feel that he has adopted his position because the Conservative Party is prejudiced against quangos. The Minister's definition of a quango was, under the circumstances, tautological. The fact that the body is representative does not make it any the less a quango. The slogan should be"a quango is a quango is a quango." Some had hoped that the White Fish Authority would be the last quango in Edinburgh, but that is not the case. If we are to have a quango there should be effective representation. Therefore, it should be larger, as that is the only way in which the industry can be brought together.
I am disappointed that some of the questions that we put to the Minister in Committee concerning the reasons for the choice of eight representatives remain unanswered. When asked about consultation with the industry he said that the industry was in favour of his structure rather than the one for which the Committee voted. Judging from the correspondence that I have received from the industry, that is questionable. What is wrong with the framework of the White Fish Authority that the hon. Gentleman is rejecting? How will the eight representatives be selected? Which sections of the industry will be represented?
I appreciate that the Minister is in difficulty if he lets the cat out of the bag. If he tells us, he might alienate those sections of the industry that are not chosen. Nevertheless, if he wants the House to endorse the structure, it is incumbent upon him to indicate who will be the representatives. In particular, we wish to know what representation will be given to the catching side of the industry. That is the prime question that that side of the industry is asking.
Organisations such as the NFFO are asking what representation will go to the catching side and, specifically, to the English catching side as distinct from the Scottish catching side. How will these people be selected? What advisory machinery will the Minister possess if his option of eight representatives is carried? The Minister has stated that under the legislation it is possible to have an advisory body, but the House would like to hear what is his preference. Does he want to see such an advisory body? If so, he may be voting with us in the Lobby.
It is difficult to decide between the two proposed frameworks. The Committee decided in favour of a smaller authority advised by a wider consultative body. That gives better representation to the industry. Even if it is a bigger quango, which costs the Government more money, I believe that the House should reaffirm the decision taken by the Committee.

Mr. Sproat: When the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) moved his new clause he reminded the House that during the Committee stage my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) and I had abstained on particular amendments and that the effect of our abstention had been that the size of the new authority was reduced from 12 to six. That is true. I would, however, advise the hon. Gentleman that he must draw a distinction between an abstention in order that a matter may come before the House again—which was my stated objective—and a rejection of the whole idea of a committee of 12, composed of eight from the industry and four from outside the industry.
I make that point not so much because the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East put a false construction on it as because the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said, in effect, that my hon. Friend and I had rejected the Government's original proposals. This was not the case. Our aim was to achieve a finely balanced judgment between a committee that would have, as its prime commodity, objectivity—because its members were not financially interested in the industry—and a committee where experience was regarded as a more important commodity, drawing on the fact that the industry was willing to have eight or more members on the new authority. My hon. Friend the Minister had to decide between objectivity and experience, and he came down on the side of putting into the new authority more experience from the industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East and I wanted to find out what those parts of the fishing industry that we represent felt about the matter. Although hon. Members assume that everyone has thought about a Bill before it goes to Committee, the fishing industry, as is probably the case in all industries, does not operate in that manner. I often receive letters proposing possible amendments in Committee long after the Committee stage: is finished. The timetable that exists in the House is not always appreciated. That is not a criticism. It is a fact of life. That was one of the reasons why my hon. Friend and I decided not to vote. It would enable us to look at the matter again.
I have spoken widely with members of the fishing industry. I do not necessarily maintain that only those in the fishing industry should be consulted. The consumer and the taxpayers also have to be considered. It is, nevertheless, true that the fishing industry in my constituency felt that the Government's idea of an authority of 12, divided into eight and four, was worth trying.
I should like to underline the point made by my hon. Friend the Minister of State about the evidence taken by the Select Committee. It was surprising to some to note the venom with which the White Fish Authority was described by certain members of the fishing industry when we met in Aberdeen. Under the goading of an increase in the levy, a gap of confidence—the phrase used by my hon. Friend—between the industry and the White Fish Authority, however unjustified and however temporary, existed I believe that that gap of confidence will to some extent be diminished by the fact that eight experienced members of the industry will be serving on the new authority. They will be able to put strongly the feelings of the industry. Even if on financial matters the remaining


four do not accept those views, no one can accuse the new authority of being out of touch with the true feelings of the industry.
I have shown that I disagree with the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). I am always sad when that happens. The more often he passes through Aberdeen the wiser he seems to become—more liberal than the whole of the rest of his party put together on this subject.

Mr. Grimond: The emphasis is on"through".

Mr. Sproat: Wisdom can be sprayed on quickly. Looking at the matter again, I feel that it is worth trying my hon. Friend's proposal. I may have the agreement of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland when I say that I distrust this increasing obeisance to vested interests. It is the curse of American politics that vested interests are consulted so strongly and have so much power. I hope that this practice will not creep into our deliberations in the House. To put eight members of the fishing industry on the board increases, in a sense, the balance of vested interests in the judgments that we make.
I wish to deal with the point about a divided industry—the fact that it is divided between catchers, merchants and processors and is divided geographically. In Committee the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland made the astounding statement that hon. Members from the Highlands knew what hon. Members in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire were thinking. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East and I quickly rejected that. I dare say that the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) would say that nobody from England could ever represent what anyone in Scotland thinks. However, having managed to overcome this feeling of prejudice that a person not wholly engaged in one section could represent the views of that section, it was with some surprise that I heard the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) say that a place on this authority had been guaranteed to someone from Ulster. I took it that an essential virtue of the new body was that members of the fishing industry would be representing the industry as a whole, and that although in private or commercial life someone might be a director of the British Fishing Federation, when he took his place on the new Sea Fish Industry Authority, he would be representing the best interests of the industry as a whole.
That principle demonstrated how it was possible, within the small compass of eight people, to represent the whole industry. If my hon. Friend is saying that the new authority is not to represent the industry as a whole and that certain representatives will represent certain sectional interests, whether commercial or geographical, I believe that he is undermining the important principle on which he originally constructed the new authority. I shall be sorry if we are told that Ulster is now definitely to have a representative. Does that go for Scotland? Does it go for the catching side? Does it go for the South-West of England, and so on?
We must make up our minds whether we accept the principle that everybody in this authority will be objective or whether we accept the principle that each individual will represent a different section of the industry. I do not think that we can marry the two together. If we have somebody specifically representing the interests of Ulster, it will be

very difficult to persuade people in Aberdeen that although there is nobody from Aberdeen on the new authority, Aberdeen will be properly represented. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will clarify this point about sectional interests.
I am prepared to support my hon. Friend and see whether this new form of authority works. I very much hope that it does. However, I cannot leave this debate, possibly the most important that we shall have on Report, without expressing my distaste and my pain that we are setting up a new quango. The Government came to power pledged to do two things in this matter—first, to cut the number of members of quangos and, secondly, to cut the cost of quangos.
The good news about the Bill is that we are abolishing two quangos. The bad news about the Bill is that we are setting up one new quango in its place—a quango that will have more members than the two old quangos combined and may cost more in remuneration and allowances than the two old quangos put together.
That is bad enough, but in Committee the Minister of State said that he could not even put a cash limit on this quango. If we can put cash limits on the Ministry of Defence, on the Manpower Services Commission and on the other important quangos we certainly should be able to put a cash limit on this.
I had hoped that my hon. Friend would say"Well, I have thought about this matter again. While I believe that the structure and principle of the new authority is correct"—that is to say, that we shall have a predominance of members representing the fishing industry as a whole, a balanced and smaller part of members who do not represent the fishing industry as a whole—"I will cut the numbers not from eight to four but perhaps from six to three. In that way we will at least have fulfilled our pledge and given an indication to people that we are determined to cut the number of quango members."
I hoped that my hon. Friend would put a cash limit on this new quango that would be lower than the spending limit—index-linked, of course—on the old one. I am sorry that my hon. Friend has not done this. I think that that is an error. I think that he has missed a chance to take a lead in something that is very important, namely, cutting public expenditure and cutting quango members. However, on the greater issue of the new form of the authority, having deliberated since Committee I am prepared to support him now.

Mr. James Johnson: I do not desire to detain the House for long before it votes on this issue. However, the Minister of State let slip the fact that one place on the board of the authority will be saved for Ulster. That prompts me to make a few comments about the geographical nature of the industry and to implore him to accept what has been said by my right hon. and hon. Friends. I foresee the new board playing a vital part in the battles that lie ahead for the fishing industry. We shall have one board instead of the two old authorities, and we must get the best people on it.
Fishing is unique in its geographical disposition. The isolated pockets of fishing communities need to be united in the battle for survival that lies ahead of them. That unity will not be achieved by a small board. We are more likely to achieve it if we have a larger board, which includes


those who are working and speaking for the various areas concerned. That is typified by the inclusion of a representative from Ulster.
There is a need for unity. There is a need to have representatives from Scotland, England—including Cornwall—and Ulster. There is a need for these isolated communities to get together on a national united federal basis and to fight their battles together, as one. That applies to the inshore and deep-sea fleets. We have heard about the clash between the Klondikers from Hull and the inshore fishermen of Cornwall and Devon. The industry is crying out for a sense of unity, a sense of understanding and, above all, a feeling that not only the nation and the Government are behind it but that it is solid in its battle against the EEC or any other opponent.
We need more places on the board to cater for the different and divisive sections of the industry. I appeal to the Minister on that score and on that score alone.

Mr. Donald Stewart: I said on Second Reading that some regard should be given to the representation of the West of Scotland when appointments to the authority were made. I mentioned the West of Scotland because of its share of the industry. However, I acknowledged that areas such as Aberdeen, Hull and Fleetwood would be able to make a case for their areas. There are certain areas—for example, the Shetlands and my own—in which fishing is extremely important.
I had assumed that there was general agreement that the authority would be set up on the lines indicated by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat), namely, a general committee, drawn in the first place without regard to geographical location. It seems that the assurance that has been given to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has breached that agreement to some extent. I have no doubt that great pressure has been put upon the hon. Gentleman to take account of the various fishing locations.
It seems that some Conservative Members think that the only good quango is a dead quango. It is true that quangos multiply and that most of the attacks on them are fully justified, but we must not get ourselves into such a frame of mind as to feel that we cannot have an advisory or consultative body again through fear of someone shouting"quango", in the hope of killing it stone dead. It is quite a good idea that we should have such a body advising the authority. I ask the Minister not to be put off by propaganda. There are some quangos that should receive the boot, but that is not necessarily true of every quango.

Mr. McNamara: In Committee I moved an amendment that stated:
At least two members of the Authority shall be appointed from persons representing trades unions, at least one of whom shall represent workers employed in the catching of fish and at least one person representing workers employed in the landing, processing and distribution of fish.
I moved that amendment on the basis of what was to be the membership of the new authority. It has been announced that one member of the authority will definitely come from Ulster. There are far fewer fishermen, far fewer people engaged in the fishing industry generally and far fewer engaged in landing, processing and distribution in the Six Counties of Norhtern Ireland than in England and Scotland. There are far fewer engaged as trades union members within the fishing industry.
In the past the White Fish Authority has tended to have trade union representation in one form or another. It is

especially important that trade unions should be represented and that those trade unions, such as my own, the Transport and General Workers' Union, should represent the large majority of those employed in the catching and the processing and distribution sides of the industry. I hope that the Minister will bear that strongly in mind. If he can make concessions to the Six Counties, my union deserves to be represented two, three or four times.

Mr. Wall: I suggest that the House is making rather heavy weather of the Bill. There has been talk about a united industry. I have known the fishing industry for 26 years and have never known it united, unfortunately. We know that that is the history of the industry. If my hon. Friend accepts the advice that he has been given he will have a quango of at least 70 members. If we are to have representatives from trade unions and the catching, freezing, processing, geographical distribution and other sections, we shall need that size of membership if the authority is to be properly representative. That is the point that I made to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) when he opened the debate. We are discussing the difference between eight members and 15, although 15 will not be any more truly representative of all sections of the industry than will eight.
If there is a choice between an executive and an advisory committee I think that most hon. Members would prefer an executive committee. That is what I understand us to have. If the new authority decides that it wants special advice on certain subjects, I understand from what the Minister said that it could set up advisory committees if it wished to do so. That seems to be the most sensible answer.

Mr. Strang: I shall not detain the House, but shall briefly reply to the debate. The Minister is clearly intent on pressing ahead with his 12-member authority, eight members of which will be representatives from the industry.
This has been a remarkable debate, in the sense that the Minister has committed himself to having one representative from Northern Ireland on the authority. I note that he was careful not to rule out the possibility that that representative might be one of the independent members. We have no objection to a member from Northern Ireland; on the contrary. There will still be a number of members from Scotland.
I hope that the Minister will respond to one sectional interest. May we have an assurance that at the minimum there will be one trade union representative? In Committee I argued for two trade union representatives, on the basis that the TUC would be asked to supply two, or perhaps only one, from the Transport and General Workers' Union and one from the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers.
I hope that the Minister will reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) at this stage. Having committed the Government to the request of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) for an Ulsterman, I hope that he will respond to the Opposition and commit himself to at least one trade union representative on the authority.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful for what has been said in the debate, and I shall deal quickly with one or two of the specific matters raised.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) raised a specific objection to the clause 14 provision which would disqualify industry representatives from taking part in financial decisions under that clause. I have reflected on that, but I believe that what is proposed in the Bill is correct. I ask my hon. Friend to reflect on the clause because it is about the administration of Government grants, the policy governing which has been laid down by the Government. The background decision in relation to those grants has been taken by the Government. What is involved in the clause is what I would describe as the case work in relation to the adminstration of those grants. It is correct that in that case those members of the industry should not and need not be involved.
That is but one area of the activities and functions of the authority. It is simply carrying out policy decisions that have been taken by Ministers. The earlier clauses cover the wider powers of the authority. The members who are appointed to the authority from the industry have full powers in formulating the policy of the authority and the important functions that it has to carry out. There is a distinction. I ask my hon. Friend, in his turn, to reflect on what I have said about the powers under those clauses.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) said that he was worried about cash. Cash limits will be placed on the Sea Fish Industry Authority, as they are on other bodies, and those figures will be published in the Estimates in due course. There is a cash limit. I hope that my hon. Friend will be reassured about that, despite his natural anxiety about these sorts of bodies generally.
I turn to the representation and the formation of the body. I am rather surprised that there has been such surprise in the House. I said quite willingly—there was no question of letting it slip—that on such an authority I would expect there to be one member from Northern Ireland. There is a distinction about areas such as that and the sectional interests in different parts of the industry. I give an assurance that we shall consider all aspects and sections of the industry and will consult them in relation to appointments made to the authority.
A further point about representation was raised, correctly, by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South. I hope that he noticed in the reply that I gave to the right hon. Member for Down, South that I was careful in the words I chose. I hope that those who are appointed to the authority from within the industry will be in no sense representatives or delegates from that part of the industry from which they come, although they will bring to the authority the expertise, experience and knowledge that they have gained of their section of the industry. Once those representatives are appointed to the authority they will be working for the good of the industry as a whole. That is the case in other similar bodies on which representatives of industry sit. They serve their industries in an objective sense. That is the sense in which, knowing the responsibility of the different organisations in different parts of the industry, I know that they will serve.
In conclusion, I ask the House to reject the new clause and to accept amendment No. 1.

Question put and negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 1, in page 2, line 1 leave out 'six' and insert 'twelve'.—[Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 183, Noes 139.

Division No. 92]
[6.00 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Ancram, Michael
Heddle, John


Arnold, Tom
Hicks, Robert


Atkins, Robert(PrestonN)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Atkinson, David(B'm'th,E)
Hogg, Hon Douglas(Gr'th'm)


Baker, Nicholas (NDorset)
Holland, Philip(Carlton)


Banks, Robert
Hooson, Tom


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Howell, Rt HonD.(G'ldf'd)


Benyon, Thomas(Adon)
Howell, Ralph (NNorfolk)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hurd, Hon Douglas


Best, Keith
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Bevan, David Gilroy
Kimball, Marcus


Biggs-Davison, John
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Blackburn, John
Lamont, Norman


Bradford, Rev R.
Lang, Ian


Braine, Sir Bernard
Latham, Michael


Bright, Graham
Lawrence, Ivan


Brinton, Tim
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Brotherton, Michael
Lee, John


Brown, Michael(Brigg&amp;Sc'n)
LeMarchant, Spencer


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Luce, Richard


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Lyell, Nicholas


Buck, Antony
Macfarlane, Neil


Bulmer, Esmond
MacGregor, John


Burden, Sir Frederick
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Carlisle, John (LutonWest)
McNair-Wilson, M.(N'bury)


Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)
McQuarrie, Albert


Chapman, Sydney
Major, John


Churchill, W.S.
Mates, Michael


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Mather, Carol


Clark, SirW. (Croydon S)
Maude, RtHonSir Angus


Clarke, Kenneth(Rushcliffe)
Mawby, Ray


Cockeram, Eric
Mawhinney, DrBrian


Colvin, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Cope, John
Meyer, SirAnthony


Cormack, Patrick
Miller, Hal(B'grove)


Corrie, John
Mills, lain(Meriden)


Costain, Sir Albert
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Cranborne, Viscount
Moate, Roger


Crouch, David
Molyneaux, James


Dean, Paul (NorthSomerset)
Montgomery, Fergus


Dorrell, Stephen
Morgan, Geraint


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Murphy, Christopher


Dover, Denshore
Myles, David


Dunlop, John
Neale, Gerrard


Dunn, Robert(Dartford)
Needham, Richard


Dykes, Hugh
Nelson, Anthony


Elliott, SirWilliam
Neubert, Michael


Emery, Peter
Newton, Tony


Fairgrieve, Russell
Onslow, Cranley


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Osborn, John


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)


Fletcher, A.(Ed'nb'gh N)
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Pawsey, James


Forman, Nigel
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Pollock, Alexander


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Glyn, Dr Alan
Price, SirDavid(Eastleigh)


Gorst, John
Proctor, K. Harvey


Gow, Ian
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Gower, Sir Raymond
Renton, Tim


Grant, Anthony (HarrowC)
Rhodes James, Robert


Gray, Hamish
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Greenway, Harry
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Griffiths, Peter Portsm 'thN)
Rossi, Hugh


Grist, Ian
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Grylls, Michael
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Gummer, John Selwyn
Shelton, William(Streatham)


Hamilton, Hon A.
Shersby, Michael


Hamilton, Michael(Salisbury)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Haselhurst, Alan
Speed, Keith


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Speller, Tony


Hawksley, Warren
Spence, John






Spicer, Michael (SWorcs)
Wakeham, John


Sproat, lain
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Squire, Robin
Wall, Patrick


Stainton, Keith
Waller, Gary


Stanbrook, lvor
Ward, John


Steen, Anthony
Warren, Kenneth


Stevens, Martin
Watson, John


Stradling Thomas, J.
Wells, John(Maidstone)


Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)
Wells, Bowen


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wheeler, John


Tebbit, Norman
Wiggin, Jerry


Temple-Morris, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Thompson, Donald
Younger, Rt Hon George


Thornton, Malcolm



Trippier, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Viggers, Peter
Mr. Alastair Goodlad and


Waddington, David
Mr. Peter Brooke


NOES


Alton, David
Hooley, Frank


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Howells, Geraint


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Hughes, Mark(Durham)


Beith, A. J.
Hughes, Robert (AberdeenN)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Bottomley, RtHonA.('M'b'ro)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Johnson, James(Hull West)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n&amp;P)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Kerr, Russell


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Kilfedder, JamesA.


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Lamborn, Harry


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stolS)
Leighton, Ronald


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Lestor, Miss Joan


Cowans, Harry
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)


Craigen, J. M.
Lewis, Ron(Carlisle)


Crowther, J.S.
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'dW)


Cryer, Bob
Mabon, Rt Hon DrJ. Dickson


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McCartney, Hugh


Dalyell, Tam
McDonald, DrOonagh


Davis, T. (B'ham,Stechf'd)
McElhone, Frank


Deakins, Eric
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
McKelvey, William


Dempsey, James
McNamara, Kevin


Dewar, Donald
McWilliam, John


Dixon, Donald
Marks, Kenneth


Dobson, Frank
Marshall, D(G'gowS'ton)


Dormand, Jack
Marshall, DrEdmund(Goole)


Dubs, Alfred
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Duffy, A. E. P.
Maxton, John


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Maynard, Miss Joan


Eadie, Alex
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Eastham, Ken
Miller, Dr M. S. (EKilbride)


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Eggar, Tim
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Ellis, R. (NEDbysh're)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Evans, John (Newton)
Morton, George


Ewing, Harry
Newens, Stanley


Fitch, Alan
O'Neill, Martin


Fitt, Gerard
Palmer, Arthur


Flannery, Martin
Park, George


Fletcher, Ted(Darlington)
Pendry, Tom


Foster, Derek
Penhaligon, David


Freud, Clement
Powell, Raymond(Ogmore)


George, Bruce
Prescott, John


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Ginsburg, David
Richardson, Jo


Gourlay, Harry
Roberts, Albert(Normanton)


Grant, George(Morpeth)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Robertson, George


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Hamilton, James(Bothwell)
Rooker, J. W.


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tralFife)
Roper,John


Hardy, Peter
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Sever, John


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Haynes, Frank
Short, Mrs Renée


HoggM-(EDunb't'nshire)
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


HomeRobertson, John
Silverman, Julius


Homewood, William
Skinner, Dennis



Spearing, Nigel
White, Frank R.


Spriggs, Leslie
Whitlock, William


Steel, Rt Hon David
Wigley, Dafydd


Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Stoddart, David
Williams, Sir T.(W'ton)


Strang, Gavin
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)



Wainwright, R.(ColneV)
Tellers for the Noes:


Watkins, David
Mr. James Tinn and


Welsh, Michael
Mr. Donald Coleman.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 2

DUTIES OF THE AUTHORITY

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 30 at end insert—
'(4) Where the Ministers give a direction under this section, they shall lay before Parliament a statement setting out the direction.'.
The amendment represents our response to the point that was put to me in Committee by several of my hon. Friends. We do not expect to use the power of direction that we have under the clause other than in exceptional circumstances. Hoewever, if it were used Ministers would wish—as the Committee wished—its terms to be made public. Indeed, one of the justifications for making such a direction is that it should be in"the public interest". I therefore considered that was the point raised in Committee, and the amendment ensures that Ministers will bring any directions to the attention of Parliament, and thereby to the public, by laying before Parliament a statement setting out the direction. I hope that the amendment meets the wishes of the House and of those hon. Members who rightly raised the matter in Committee.

Mr. Strang: I welcome the amendment. We made it clear in Committee that it was right that the Government should have the power to issue directions to the authority, which would be spending Government money and be responsible for the research and development programme of the industry. The Minister said that the power would be used only in exceptional instances and that he would avoid giving directions to the authority in so far as that was practicable. We agree with that, but we feel that it is important, for the sake of open government, that if the Government give a direction to the authority it should be clear, explicit and widely known throughout the industry. We therefore welcome the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Strang: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 33 at end add—
'(5) It shall be a duty of the Authority to establish and operate a deficiency payments scheme to protect the livelihoods of those involved in the sea fish industry.'.
The amendment seeks to give the authority the power to introduce a deficiency payments scheme to protect the livelihoods of those involved in the sea fish industry. Our purpose is, first, to argue the case for a deficiency payments scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) will wish to speak on this matter. Secondly, it would be remiss of the Opposition not to take this opportunity to emphasise the gravity of the financial state of the industry. It is some months now since the Government announced the temporary financial aid


scheme. Last August we welcomed that aid, but we made it clear at the time that we viewed it as a temporary measure, and that if there were no improvement in the fortunes of the industry the Government should take further action to help the industry by giving it additional money and/or taking action to control cheap imports.
The position is now worse than it was last August. There is even greater anxiety about the future of the catching sector. Last August there was the blockade. In recent weeks, fishermen, who are by no means militant by nature, have taken desperate action to focus attention on the plight of the industry. It is vital that the Government act quickly. I know that they are considering the whole question of cheap imports. I think it is accepted on all sides of the House that in some instances these imports are what are described as"black" fish—fish that have been caught illegally in British waters by foreign vessels flouting our conservation measures. The prices that have prevailed of late in our ports have not been adequate to give the industry anything like the return that it needs to pay for its labour, to service its capital or to provide the profit that it needs for future investment.
6.15 pm
I repeat that the Government must move quickly. In my view, there is no alternative to a package of financial measures and direct action to control imports. I see no hope of the European Community stepping in in time to save the British industry. It is highly unlikely that there will be any settlement on the common fisheries policy until after the French presidential election.
We realise that the Government are considering the matter very carefully, and we know that a committee is considering the whole subject of imports, but fishermen cannot wait for long. They are desperate. The whole British fishing industry, including the processing side, is almost in a state of collapse. The Government must therefore take bold interventionist measures to protect an industry that is important in terms of its contribution to our national wealth and in terms of employment, particularly in some areas where a significant element of the local population is totally dependent on the fishing industry. Moreover, the fishing industry is part of our heritage—the heritage of a great seafaring island nation.
We therefore hope that the authority will have power to intervene in this area. In particular, it should have the power to operate a deficiency payments scheme. The Minister of State is familiar with the operation of deficiency payments schemes. Indeed, many hon. Members on both sides of the House are well aware of the way that these schemes have operated in the past in agriculture. As a result of the renegotiations by the Labour Government and of the present Government's agreement on the fisheries regime, deficiency payments schemes are now operating for beef and sheep, albeit in a limited form.
This approach, which seeks to give a guaranteed return to the fishing industry for the fish that it catches and lands in Britain, may well be the right way to provide a secure future for the people who work in the industry. The amendment does not spell out all the details. It will not be enough simply to give the authority power to operate a deficiency payments scheme. Other elements will be needed in this method of supporting the industry.
The industry's future is vital to this country. A number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), who takes a great interest in this issue and is clearly very concerned about the future of the Aberdeen-based industry, wish to support the amendment.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: The amendment represents an attempt to grapple with the most serious problem now facing the industry, that of marketing, which constitutes a threat to the livelihoods of large sections of the industry, particularly those on the catching side. This serious threat has developed over the past two years and the need for it to be resolved is more desperate than is the need for a settlement in Europe. Unless the industry gets efficiently regulated markets and a proper return on its catches, companies and individuals will once again be brought to the point of bankruptcy, will stop fishing and will lay up their vessels. That will reduce our catch and curtail our ability to catch.
The proposed deficiency payments scheme is an attempt to grapple with those circumstances. We have chosen the new authority as the most reasonable framework within which to operate such a scheme. The problem of markets is basically the problem of price, which is caused partially by a falling off of demand, but also by the threat of imports, which rose steadily through the late 1970s. They were rising again last year, and according to the latest report of the White Fish Authority research unit, they have risen again substantially in 1981. The effects on the industry have been cataclysmic. The authority's latest report, dated 26 February 1981, emphasises that the prices of imports are below the prices prevailing in January 1980 and in January 1979. Dutch cod entered this country at an average price of £509 a tonne last month, compared with £555 a tonne in January 1979 and £519 a tonne in January last year. Even more astonishing was the decline in the price of fresh or chilled plaice and of cod fillets, imports of which have been a serious threat to the industry.
That is the basic threat, and we are attempting to surmount it by regulation of the markets. Fish imports are attracted here by our open market, but, more specifically, by the overvaluation of the pound. The slight slide in the value of the pound in the past couple of weeks has done nothing to improve the position, because the overvaluation has developed over four years. It has produced a crisis in fishing because it has meant that fish can be imported more cheaply than our industry can catch it. Fishing, therefore, with a whole range of other industries, is becoming uncompetitive, through no fault of its own. Yet, like those other industries, it has been subjected to the usual sermons from the Government, and particularly from the Prime Minister, about how to make itself competitive when that is impossible because of the over-valuation of sterling.
The other aspect of the problem is the undoubted over-fishing and cheating on the quotas by our so-called partners in the EEC. They are breaking the gentlemen's agreements on quotas and on the marketing of fish, and are swamping our markets as a result. That poses a threat to the livelihoods of those in our industry, which in turn produces the stoppage that we witnessed in January and which is certain to resume unless something is done to rectify the problem.
The Grimsby fishermen made it clear that they were giving the Government eight weeks in which to come up with an answer or the stoppage would resume. That threat hangs over us all. The only way to solve this crisis is to manage the markets. The minimum price scheme, as a means of doing that, has broken down in Grimsby and Scotland. It: does not solve the problem, because it simply attracts imports since they, too, can secure the minimum price. Deficiency payments are therefore the only answer.
Under such a scheme a price would be set to reflect the cost of catching the fish. If the fish does not make that price in the market the fisherman would be paid the deficiency payment as a means of keeping him and the industry going. The price would have to be varied by species, quality and size. It is no use stimulating deliberate over-fishing and encouraging the catching of rubbish fish to be dumped on the market simply to obtain the payment. We do not want to encourage that. There would therefore have to be differentiation by size and quality, but it is possible to devise a scheme that does that while giving a better base level to the whole market, moving prices upwards and keeping the industry going in these difficult times.
There could be no better way of helping the industry. I said earlier that there are doubts in the industry about the Bill, but there can be no more effective way of making the new authority acceptable to the industry, which is in desperate straits, than by allowing it to operate a deficiency payments scheme of this nature, with the Government providing the necessary finance.
The authority is the appropriate body to handle the scheme. I therefore hope that the House will accept the amendment and bring much-needed respite to the industry in its difficulties.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The fishing industry has always been governed by supply and demand. It is probably one of the few parts of our economy that experience the full effect of market forces almost from day to day. The one fact that is agreed upon in the fishing industry is that although there were good times and bad, and although the bad times were sometimes dreadful, over a period the good times outweighed the bad. For a considerable time after 1945 the industry had a secure financial future and there was prosperity in our fishing ports such as they had never seen.
Everyone in the fishing industry is now agreed, irrespective of the view taken about the EEC or about how the problems may be resolved, that the industry is lurching from crisis to crisis. The length of time between crises gets smaller every time. We have just witnessed a time of militant action by fishermen—not the traditional militant action that we sometimes think of. A myth has grown up that a militant means some son of Left-wing coal miner. The militancy in the fishing industry was shown not by working fishermen, but by the vessel owners. They initiated the action and were strongest in their attempts to force the Government's hand and bring about change.
We have experienced a time during which fishermen have been concerned about the low level of prices on the quayside. Although they fluctuate from time to time, there is no doubt that quite soon the market will be back in the chaotic conditions of not so long ago. That state of affairs cannot be allowed to persist. Like many hon. Members who have fishing interests in their constituencies, I have had discussions with both sides of the industry. I have

talked to the Aberdeen Fish Curers and Merchants Association, to the chairman of the fishermen's action committee, to the representatives of the Scottish White Fish Producers Association and with others. They are all of the same view—that the industry must find some system whereby those in it, instead of pulling against each other, work together.
6.30 pm
The difficulties facing not only the owners, but everyone working in the industry, are best illustrated by a story that I was told by a skipper in Aberdeen. He operates on a share basis—the men who go to sea receive a share of the value of the catch. He told me that in the week before the stoppage he and his crew were at sea for 95 hours. After he had paid the running costs of the vessel, such as fuel—he did not pay his bill for the lubricating oil—and various other things, all that he was able to make available to the members of his crew was £42 each. That was less than 50p an hour. I should be surprised to learn of any industry in Britain where the pay is less than 50p an hour.
When we consider the safety aspects of the Bill, I am sure that it will be recognised that going to sea is a dangerous occupation.
Those 95 hours were spent working in miserable conditions. It is not pleasant going out into the North Sea at this time of year, even on fairly calm days. It is bitterly cold. It is very nasty work. The skipper was apologetic because that was all that he could afford to give his crew. Nobody knows how the crew can afford to live on £42 a week. A scheme must be introduced that guarantees a certain level of return, so that men are properly paid.
The interests of the owners and the men who go to sea as working fishermen—not only share fishermen—are paramount. Those interests are coming closer together. Everyone believes that we must stop the chaotic conditions from recurring again and again. Whole fleets are being destroyed. In Aberdeen, the lamentably small number of 11 to 13 trawlers now sail from the port. In my young days we could walk across that harbour from vessel to vessel because there were so many of them. The fleet has been more than decimated. It is considerably smaller now than it has ever been.
In such a situation all sorts of allegations of bad faith are made. The men who go to sea believe that one reason for the low price of fish on the quayside is that the merchants are operating a ring to drive down prices and keep them low in order to maximise profit. That allegation is as old as the industry itself. Fishermen have always felt that, whatever the price of fish—even when it was high—they were not getting enough return because the merchants cobbled together a price that they were willing to pay.
The merchants argue that they do not operate in that way. I am not saying that they have never operated in that way. I hasten to say that I am not referring to merchants in my constituency. However, I know of merchants in other parts of the country—

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Kincardineshire.

Mr. Hughes: I shall not mention any area. I do not want to start any tribal rivalries. We have enough trouble as it is, especially with Mr. Speaker in the Chair. Merchants have had the means available to operate a ring


to hold down prices, but they say that that does not happen. They say that they are as much governed by market forces as is anyone else.
That leads me to describe how the merchants view the price of imported fish. They argue that the volume of imports does not have such a great effect on the price available at the quayside as does the price at which the imports come in. They phone their customers, mainly in England, in the mornings and offer them cod at, for example, £8 a stone. The customer says that he can get imported cod for £4 a stone. If every merchant tried to buy imported fish at that price he would not get it, because it is not available in sufficient quantities to satisfy the market. If the customer says that he will not pay the price that the merchant asks, the merchant goes to the market and bids as low as possible, because that is the only way to sell the fish. Everybody is in the business to sell fish. There is a real need for a system that will bring order and some certainty into market conditions.
During the past six or seven years the industry has had close contact and discussions with Ministers, under both the Labour Government and this Government. Ministers are readily accessible to the producers. When they go to Brussels for negotiations, deputations of fishermen also go, and discussions take place. The merchants feel that they are left out. To some extent they are being blamed for the chaos in the industry and for the bad prices, yet they do not have access to Ministers.
A deputation from merchants' associations has asked to see the Minister. It may also wish to see Lord Mansfield, the Minister of State, Scottish Office. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, as the Minister responsible for fishing, will agree to meet the merchants, so that they can put their point of view. I hope that he will give me an answer to that this evening. They are not asking for handouts. They want fair competition. They believe that the industry can survive, given fair competition. Without it, they believe that it cannot survive, even in the unlikely event of a settlement in the common fisheries negotiations that are due to take place next week.
I am horrified by the suggestion in some of today's newspapers that the meeting scheduled for next week may not take place. It is being suggested that the meeting will be cancelled because there is no prospect of agreement and that to register failure once again would be worse than continuing the negotiations. I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate he will tell us what is happening on that issue.
All sorts of factors affect the price of fish. We argued in Committee about how much fish should be landed ungutted—the so-called problem of rounders. Because of the lifting of regulations about the landing of rounders, almost every vessel is now landing them. The merchants say that that has two consequences. First, if the rounders are landed by trawlers there is a serious deterioration in the quality of fish reaching the market. Secondly, when rounders have been landed by inshore fishing vessels an additional cost must be paid by the merchant for cleaning, gutting and filleting the fish before they are sold. The merchants want a temporary ban on the landing of rounders.
I see that you are looking rather quizzically at your Notice Paper, Mr. Speaker. You may be wondering what this has to do with the deficiency payments scheme. All

those conditions affect the price in the market. The price fluctuates from day to day and from catch to catch. No one knows what will happen. Above all else, the industry is desperate for an assurance that it has an existence and that it can pay its way.
We know the tremendous debt that vessel owners have to pay—especially those who have built vessels in recent times. We know that the cost of servicing the borrowing has risen as has the price of oil. Those factors affect the price that the producers acquire on the market. What the industry needs is stability. In my discussions with the various fishing interests, that is the one thing on which they hold together, but I accept that not everyone is in complete agreement on how we are to get that stability.
I confess that there is one weakness in the proposed deficiency payments scheme, and that is that it has to be paid for by somebody. That somebody will be the Government and the taxpayer, so the Government may try to resist the amendment on the ground that such a scheme would be enormously expensive. I do not think that that is necessarily so, although if there were a deficiency payments scheme related to a bottom price on the market it is possible that, in the knowledge that the difference between what they bought at and the deficiency price would be made up by the Government, there would be a tendency for merchants to bid even lower, because the difference would not come out of their pockets.
Having discussed the matter with merchants, I think that they are aware of the difficulties. They say that it is not in their interests to allow the present conditions to continue, nor to have a deficiency payments scheme and then to bust the scheme by not paying enough, and thus landing the Government with an enormous bill. The amendment is a serious attempt to look at all the different conditions that I have described and find a way out of the impasse. This would be a satisfactory scheme. It should be possible for the Government to accept the amendment and at a later stage in another place to put a ceiling on the amount of money that would be made available for the scheme.
The industry would welcome this scheme. It would give it stability and enable it to plan ahead. It would allow all those in the industry to know where they are going. Above all, although in these debates we tend to concentrate on the technical aspects of how fish are marketed, how the price is arrived at and on the need for proper earnings for people who go to sea, and so on, the one thing that should interest every hon. Member is the importance of fish as a food.
I am disappointed, as I have said on earlier occasions, that it is always the same people who take part in debates on fishing. Fish is a high protein food which is valuable to the health of the nation. If people ate more fish and less of the so-called convenience foods, which are really rubbish foods, they would be much healthier. Here we are speaking about the health of an industry and also about the health of a nation. For those reasons I commend the amendment to the House and hope that hon. Members will accept it.

Mr. McNamara: I see that you, Mr. Speaker, are looking quizzically at Members on this side of the House. We seem to be adducing most of the arguments in this debate.

Mr. McQuarrie: The hon. Gentleman is at it again.

Mr. McNamara: I am just trying to redress the balance. Earlier the Minister of State said that not all hon. Members supported certain amendments, although we vouchsafed support for them. Therefore, I thought that the best thing I could do would be to speak where and when I thought it appropriate on matters which were of interest to my constituents and which you, Mr. Speaker, decided were in order. I thought I had better get that in quickly.
If I were to point out a deficiency in this amendment, particularly on the question of applying for a deficiency payments scheme, it would be that we have talked about it without putting it into the context of the general market for fish and the position within these islands on the import of fish. One cannot talk about a deficiency system which would work efficiently and well and which would meet the need so adequately and eloquently put forward by my hon. Friends if one does not control the imports from EEC countries and elsewhere.
If we are merely to subsidise our own fish, we are leaving ourselves wide open for subsidies from elsewhere disguised in one way or another. Therefore, I add my plea to that of my hon. Friends that in introducing a deficiency payments scheme we must also have a market controlled specifically to import quotas, the price to be charged and the nature of the fish that is landed. Conceivably this might appear to be a rather bureaucratic scheme, although I believe it could be done simply by having proper regulations and certain ports of entry.
6.45 pm
It is important that we should have some system of this nature. It is not sufficient to give licences to boats to go to fish perhaps in Norwegian waters, as trawlers have gone from Hull recently not knowing whether, when they return, they will have covered the expenses of their voyage. In some cases, members of my union owed the trawler owners money because the catch had not realised the price that they had hoped it would achieve. Therefore, there is the strongest case for a deficiency payments scheme.
If we are to protect the industry, we must link the scheme strongly and purposefully with control on imports. That is fundamental when looking at this sort of scheme. We cannot do it in isolation. We can protect the livelihood of people engaged in the sea fishing industry and guarantee for them the degree of security that we would like to see in whatever aspect of the industry, whether in relation to catching, processing or distributing, only if we are able to control the price at which the commodity is sold in the English market. The two—import control, and a deficiency payments system— must go hand in hand. One without the other is useless.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I should like to respond to the debate in two parts—first, in relation to the amendment itself, and, secondly, in relation to what I think lies behind the amendment—the natural concern, which I share, about the marketing of fish.
On the amendment itself, there are already powers in the Bill for the Government to provide money for any kind of financial scheme for the industry. In clause 13 the Government have powers to give financial aid to the industry, and the range of the powers is fairly wide. Therefore, Government assistance could be available to the industry under the Bill as it stands. Equally, it is within the power of the Government to ask the authority to administer a scheme of financial assistance, or the

Government themselves can carry out directly a financial scheme. So there is power for financial assistance without need for this amendment. The Sea Fish Industry Authority could be used to administer that power. To that extent, the amendment is not necessary.
Secondly, this amendment is in one sense rather more specific than what I have indicated in what I said about general powers to make provision for financial assistance for the industry. The amendment specifically relates to aid to the industry by means of a deficiency payments scheme. I waited for most of the speech by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) to find out what he meant by a deficiency payments scheme. The hon. Member indicated in general terms what he meant by it. but he did not give any details of how such a scheme could work. It was left rather more to his hon. Friends.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) fairly expressed doubt on how a deficiency payments scheme might work because of problems relating to the way that auctions operate and so on. There is no doubt that, given the nature of the marketing organisation within the industry, more thought would have to be given to how such a scheme could work.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) went even further and touched on the heart of the matter. I think that it would be dangerous for the Government to embark upon a scheme of this nature unless at the same time there were certain other controls. It is not a question of being either opposed or committed to intervention in the industry. No Government could enter a scheme of this nature without some knowledge of the financial implications to which they might be committed. That is why the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central did a service to the House by drawing attention to the fact that to make such a scheme work we would need other financial controls. Otherwise, the scheme could be open-ended. I am grateful to the hon. Members for Aberdeen, North and Kingston upon Hull, Central for highlighting some of the practical problems in a scheme of this nature.

Mr. Robert Hughes: What I should like to hear from the Minister is not that there is the possibility under clause 13 for aid to be made available to the industry and therefore that the amendment is unnecessary because the Sea Fish Industry Authority could make arrangements under its existing powers, but whether the Government are serious about having discussions with the industry on such a scheme. Knowing the industry as I do, I can say that it has hitherto always resisted this kind of control over its activities. But now, for the first time in all the years that I have know the industry, I believe there is a strong desire within the industry seriously to examine a deficiency payments scheme as a way of resolving its present difficulties.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I was coming to that point. I have made two points so far. First—the hon, Gentleman summarised this point for me—I said that there is no necessity to take power in the way suggested in the amendment to introduce such a scheme, because the power already exists.
The second point, which I was just finishing when the hon. Gentleman intervened, is that the introduction of a deficiency payments scheme would require a great deal of


preparation and consideration because of the genuine practical difficulties mentioned by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central.
I acknowledge that deficiency payments schemes have worked satisfactorily in the agriculture industry, but that is not totally comparable with the fishing industry. However, such a scheme in this area would raise many complexities. I should not like to give any encouragement either to the House or to the industry for believing that such a scheme could easily be contemplated and introduced.
That leads me to the second major part of the debate—financial aid generally to the industry. This matter is under consideration and is being discussed between responsible Ministers and representatives of the industry. The Government were already committed to a financial review of the industry at the end of March. Acknowledging the real difficulties being experienced by the industry, we brought the review forward by several weeks. We have already had a meeting with the industry on this matter, and it has put forward a number of suggestions to us.
One of the suggestions is not precisely a deficiency payments scheme, but what might be called a variation of it regarding market price support measures. One of the Scottish organisations put forward that suggestion. I should add that at the meeting at which that proposal was put forward, not only Ministers but other sections of the industry expressed deep reservations about the effectiveness of such a scheme and about whether public money spent in that way would be a good use of funds to help the industry. I mention that in passing as a matter of fact.
I assure the House that the scheme that has been suggested by one organisation in the industry will be carefully considered. However, I do not want to mislead the House. I say no more than I have already said to the industry. I see considerable difficulties. I have so far done nothing to encourage the industry to believe that the suggested scheme, or even a variation of it, might be adopted. Not only do we see real difficulties, but we have genuine doubts about whether aid for the industry in that form would stabilise the market or ensure that the finance would be effectively deployed. Despite these misgivings, I assure the House that the proposals put to us will be carefully considered.
We are still considering the proposal put to us by the industry. We have a number of alternatives to consider apart from whether aid is necessary. We must consider how, if aid is to be given, it should be provided. The means will be considered. However, I do not rate the chances very high, because our assessment does not encourage us to believe that it is a useful or sensible way to proceed.
I do not think that it is necessary to deal with the technical nature of the amendment. I re-emphasise that I have misgivings about the practicality of the scheme suggested here. The Government, in co-operation with the industry, are considering this matter. We recognise the industry's financial difficulties. I hope shortly to be in a position to respond to the proposal put to us by the industry. I must ask the House not to accept the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:

The House divided: Ayes 125, Noes 169.

Division No. 93]
[7 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Leighton, Ronald


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Lestor, MissJoan


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)


Beith, A. J.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'dW)


Bottomley, Rt Hon A. (M'b'ro)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Bray, Dr Jeremy
McCartney, Hugh


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'&amp;P)
McElhone, Frank


Campbell-Savours, Dale
McKay, Allen(Penistone)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McKelvey, William


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stolS)
McNamara, Kevin


Coleman, Donald
McWilliam, John


Concannon, RtHonJ. D.
Marks, Kenneth


Cowans, Harry
Marshall, D(G'gowS'ton)


Craigen, J. M.
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Crowther, J.S.
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Cryer, Bob
Maxton, John


Cuniiffe, Lawrence
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dalyell, Tam
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Miller, Dr M. S. (EKilbride)


Deakins, Eric
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Dempsey, James
Morton, George


Dewar, Donald
Newens, Stanley


Dixon, Donald
O'Neill, Martin


Dobson, Frank
Palmer, Arthur


Dormand, Jack
Park, George


Dubs,Alfred
Penhaligon, David


Duffy, A. E. P.
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Prescott, John


Eadie, Alex
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Eastham, Ken
Richardson, Jo


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)
Roberts, A;bert(Normanton)


Ellis, R. (NED'bysh're)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Evans, John (Newton)
Robertson, George


Ewing, Harry
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Fitch, Alan
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Fitt, Gerard
Sever, John


Flannery, Martin
Short, Mrs Renée


Fletcher, Ted(Darlington)
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Freud, Clement
Silverman, Julius


George, Bruce
Skinner, Dennis


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Spearing, Nigel


Ginsburg, David
Spriggs, Leslie


Gourlay, Harry
Steel, Rt Hon David


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (WIsles)


Grant, John (IslingtonC)
Stoddart, David


Hamilton, W.W. (C'tral Fife)
Strang, Gavin


Hardy, Peter
Thorne, Slan (PrestonSouth)


Harrison, RtHonWalter
Tinn, James


Hattersley, RtHon Roy
Wainwright, E. (DearneV)


Haynes, Frank
Wainwright, R. (ColneV)


Hogg, N.(EDunb't'nshire)
Welsh, Michael


Home Roberts'on, John
White, Frank R.


Homewood, William
Whitlock, William


Hooley, Frank
Wigley, Dafydd


Howells, Geraint
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Hughes, Mark(Durham)
Williams, Sir T. (W'ton)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas



Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Kilfedder, James A.
Mr. Austin Mitchell.


Lamborn, Harry



NOES


Alexander, Richard
Berry, Hon Anthony


Ancram, Michael
Best, Keith


Arnold, Tom
Bevan, David Gilroy


Atkins, Robert (PrestonN)
Biggs-Davison, John


Atkinson, David (B'm'th, E)
Blackburn, John


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Braine, Sir Bernard


Banks, Robert
Bright, Graham


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'oay)
Brinton, Tim


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Brooke, Hon Peter






Brotherton, Michael
McQuarrie, Albert


Brown, Michael (Brigg&amp;Sc'n)
Major, John


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Mates, Michael


Bryan Sir Paul
Mather, Carol


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Buck, Antony
Mawby, Ray


Bulmer, Esmond
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Chapman, Sydney
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Churchill, W.S.
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Moate, Roger


Clark, SirW. (CroydonS)
Montgomery, Fergus


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Morgan, Geraint


Cockeram, Eric
Murphy, Christopher


Colvin, Michael
Myles, David


Cormack, Patrick
Neale, Gerrard


Corrie, John
Needham, Richard


Costain, Sir Albert
Nelson, Anthony


Crouch, David
Neubert, Michael


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Newton, Tony


Dorreil, Stephen
Onslow, Cranley


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Osborn, John


Dover, Denshore
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Dunn, Roben (Dartford)
Page, Rt Hon SirG. (Crosby)


Dykes, Hugh
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Elliott, Sir Wiiliam
Pollock, Alexander


Emery, Peter
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Fairgrieve, Russell
Prior, Rt Hon James


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Proctor, K. Harvey


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Renton, Tim


Fookes, Miss Janet
Rhodes James, Robert


Forman, Nigel
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Rossi, Hugh


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Goodlad, Alastair
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Gorst, John
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Skeet, T. H. H.


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Speed, Keith


Gray, Hamish
Speller, Tony


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Spence, John


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Grist, Ian
Sproat, lain


Grylls, Michael
Squire, Robin


Gummer, JohnSelwyn
Stainton, Keith


Hamilton, Hon A.
Stanbrook, lvor


Haselhurst, Alan
Stevens, Martin


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Stradling, Thomas,J.


Hawksley, Warren
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Tebbit, Norman


Heddle, John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Thornton, Malcolm


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Hooson, Tom
Trippier, David


Hordern, Peter
Viggers, Peter


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)
Waddington, David


Howell, Ralph (NNorfolk)
Wakeham, John


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Wall, Patrick


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Waller, Gary


Kimball, Marcus
Ward, John


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Warren, Kenneth


Lamont, Norman
Watson, John


Lang, Ian
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Lawrence, Ivan
Wells, Bowen


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Wheeler, John


Lee, John
Wickenden, Keith


LeMarchant, Spencer
Winterton, Nicholas


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Wolfson, Mark


Luce, Richard
Younger, Rt Hon George


Lyell, Nicholas



Macfarlane, Neil
Tellers for the Noes:


MacGregor, John
Mr. Donald Thompson and


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Mr. John Cope.


McNair-Wilson, M.(N'bury)

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. McNamara: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 34 at end insert—
'(5) It shall be the duty of the Authority, if requested by any section of a trade union representing any section of employees in the industry, to publish reports comparing the employment practice in the industry with other industrial workers.'.
The purpose of the amendment is twofold: first, to draw attention to the situation within the industry, and, secondly, to try to devise methods by which the industry can perhaps be better organised, and certainly more information can be given about the industry. This is a very general industry. At one end there are a number of large multinational companies for which fishing may be a small though important part of their enterprise, and at the other end of the spectrum there is the one-man concern, the fisherman going out in his coble, perhaps with a long-line, seeking to supplement his income by a couple of hours' fishing.
The fishing industry cannot be compared with, for instance, the motor car industry. If there be an industry with which it can be compared in terms of organisation, perhaps the best example is the building and construction industry. We see the same chaotic state of organisation in the building industry as we see in the fishing industry. At every level, in every type of firm and in each part of the industry, there is the same degree of confusion—in the catching of fish, in processing, in distribution and in retailing.
Thus, the first major problem confronting anyone seeking to examine the industry is the result of its economic organisation, whatever type of firm or enterprise is involved. This creates all sorts of difficulties. It creates a problem for people seeking to act in a representative capacity, whether in employers' or employees' organisations, or acting as representatives speaking for constituencies as we do in this place. We have already seen among hon. Members the confusion of interests that can arise between different elements within the fleet and different groups among the merchants.
We know the problems, but I believe that they have a particularly evil effect in relation to various employment practices within the industry. We shall at a later stage consider the specific questions of accidents in the industry and the effect that decasualisation has upon the availability and provision of various social security benefits and employment defences for workers in the industry.
My concern at this point is to see that a duty is laid upon the authority to oversee what is happening in the industry as a whole. What are the rates of pay? What are the hours of work? How do they compare with what happens in other industries in the United Kingdom with comparable work practices? How do workers in the industry stand in terms of social, fringe and other benefits?
I am referring here not just to the catching side of the industry, but to the whole gamut, from catching to retailing. How do workers in the fishing industry fare in comparison with workers in other industries in the United Kingdom?
This matter is of particular importance because of the nature of the industry and the way it works. North of the border and, indeed, in parts of England, many of the firms are in small factories or processing shops, places that lack much organisation—sometimes among employers and


sometimes among employees—and which are often isolated, not always knowing what goes on in the rest of the industry and unable to make comparisons.
In essence, what I seek is a general power. I am concerned that the Government do not know what the practices are, and neither do the various representative organisations in the industry. There is no uniformity of employment or work practices, of wages or of all the other matters that concern us in this place and, I believe, concern people in the industry.
7.15 pm
No records exist. There is no examination of the industry in that way, and I believe that the new authority should have such a responsibility laid upon it. That resonsibility can be laid upon it very properly and effectively if, as we propose in the amendment, a section of employees within the industry ask for these various matters to be brought to the attention of the authority and for proper comparisons to be published.
As I have said, we shall consider later amendments dealing specifically with accidents and with decasualisation, but my present concern is that a general duty should be laid upon the authority. Some of my hon. Friends will, no doubt, if they catch the eye of the Chair, draw attention to certain anomalies that they have found to exist in recent times, quite apart from the old and continuing sores which will be the subject of later amendments.

Mr. John Home Robertson: I wish to draw attention to an extremely topical employment practice in the fishing industry which, frankly, would not stand up to any comparison with other industries. I refer to the treatment of employees when they have been laid off. I refer not so much to employment practices as to unemployment practices, together with the treatment of fishermen by the Department of Employment. I am sure that it would be useful if the authority were to have power to examine these practices.
By the very nature of the industry, it stands to reason that fishermen are frequently unable to work, sometimes for quite long periods during the winter, because of bad weather. They have to be laid off by their employers. During my two years as Member of Parliament for Berwick and East Lothian, where there are several small fishing ports, it has been my experience that far too many fishermen have been laid off for one reason or another and have run into difficulties when claiming unemployment benefit.
It is particularly topical to raise this issue now since a number of fishermen were laid off during the recent dispute when the entire Scottish fishing fleet was tied up for weeks. The crewmen who normally man those vessels were subjected to a number of demoralising experiences during those weeks. For a start, it must have been demoralising for them to pick up their copy of Fishing News of 20 February and read the headline telling them that the Belgians had"hit the herring" and that in only one day 1,900 50-kilo boxes of herring had been landed in Ostend. That must have been especially demoralising for them when they are not allowed to think about herring, never mind catch the wretched things or land them.
But it was even more demoralising when those fishermen went along to claim their unemployment

benefit. Since their skippers had voluntarily tied up their vessels and laid off their employees, these crewemen were unquestionably unemployed, but far too many of them are now, almost a month later, still waiting for the first payment of unemployment benefit in respect of that period.
I have taken the matter up with the Department of Employment in Edinburgh, and the problem appears to be that fishermen are treated as special cases when they claim unemployment benefit. I understand that what is to happen on this occasion is that the insurance officer will have to give individual examination to a test case in respect of one employee from each and every boat which was involved in the tie-up before the rest of the employees on each vessel will receive their benefit. This could take a long time.
That is why I welcome the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) in bringing forward the amendment. It would be useful for the Sea Fish Industry Authority to have the power to examine employment practices and, indeed, the way in which employees in the fishing industry are treated by the Department of Employment during temporary or protracted spells of unemployment which occur through no fault of the employees concerned.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: The intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) and myself in putting forward the amendment was to provide more information about the fishing industry. It is our belief that the best ally of the industry, particularly at the present difficult juncture, is information being put out about conditions in the industry, the prices fetched, and the kind of return that skippers and fishermen make on their extremely tough and difficult job. When people are given that information the sympathy of the country goes out to the industry. The best way of improving the position of the industry is to provide information about what is happening to it and the type of conditions in which people are working.
I am not talking about the romantic"Red Sails in the Sunset" view of fishing; I am talking about the sheer, bloody reality of broken limbs, lost lives, appalling working conditions and the intolerable situations that fishermen face on returning to port. Employment practices in the industry leave a great deal to be desired.
One of the problems in obtaining information is that there is no clear responsibility for provision of the kind of information upon which a case for improvement can be made. People in the industry therefore have no leverage, no point on which to work, and no source for the kind of information that would improve their position. One has to say that many of the problems would not have occurred if the information had been available and widely known. It is in an attempt to provide that information that the amendment has been put forward.
I cite briefly four classic examples of situations that would probably not have arisen had there been the continuous invigilation and the constant source of information that the industry so badly needs and that could be provided through the authority.
The long delay in decasualisation has been an abomination. The arguments have gone on for so long, with so little end result, that an industry in which the unions and the fishermen are crying out for a scheme of employment is still without that scheme after all these


years. The accident rate shows that it is by far the most dangerous industry. It is far more dangerous than coal mining. The figures should not merely be collated but should be made known, because that aspect, too, is part of the employment conditions.
Occasional, intermittent anomalies may have disastrous effects upon people's lives. For instance, a drowning may occur, or a death may occur on a vessel on which insurance has not been paid. There is the type of responsibility that can then arise, and the tragedy for the family of the man who is killed.
I raised a further case in Committee. I was grateful for the Minister's undertaking that he would look at it. I shall certainly send him the information. I refer to the DTI log book for vessels. In the case of share-fishermen, it does not specify the share of the catch that is payable to them. That has been described by one spokesman for the Grimsby share-fishermen as a licence to steal, because, in effect, shares can be changed at will in the course of a voyage. All those anomalies need to be highlighted. They need the focus, the flow of information, and the leverage that would be provided by the clause.
The diminishing number of fishermen employed in the industry has been paralleled in inverse ratio, as it were, by increasing anger of the kind that exploded in the January stoppage. It was interesting to note that in Grimsby the skippers decided to go back three days before the men could be persuaded to do so, so strong was the anger about the situation that they and the industry faced and so wide had the gulf become between different sections of the industry.
What is needed is not the rush of sympathy that comes every time there is a film about fishing, about the conditions in which people work and about the death rate in the industry. What is needed is a body that has specific responsibility for collating and providing that information, a source of leverage for the unions and other sectional groups in the industry to acquire the kind of information that will help them to put forward a case for the improvement that is so vitally needed in the industry today.

Mr. John Prescott: I wish briefly to put on record my support for the amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) has a very long history of fighting for changes for the fishermen and for his own union's interest in these matters. As a seaman back in 1966, I used to go to my hon. Friend to ask him to do the same for seamen as he was doing for fishing. I was glad that I was able to relieve him of some of that burden when I entered Parliament in 1970.

Mr. McNamara: So was I.

Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend, too, was relieved. We have worked together in the interests of fishermen. I therefore wish to put on record my admiration for all that he has done for seamen and, in particular, fishing.
The amendment reflects matters about which my hon. Friend was campaigning a number of years ago and on which we have considerable agreement, such as the great difficulty in attempting to bring about the normal advances that are given to industrial workers, and in some cases to seamen, but which for some reason are not given to fishermen.
When I first came to the port of Hull as a seaman in 1966, I was amazed to see that fishermen still carried their mattresses away to sea. Indeed, I understand that in some cases that still continues today. That is a terrible practice. It is difficult to believe that in this day and age one still has to turn up with one's mattress. The problem has to some extent ceased in the port of Hull, because very few fishing ships are now putting to sea. Nevertheless, it is an indication of how fishermen have lagged behind in conditions which have been given to other maritime workers, particularly seafarers.
I generally welcome the proposal in the Bill to set up a central authority. Indeed, in a report entitled"Fishing into the Eighties", I and a group of other people advocated a central authority of some form. I therefore welcome this provision in the Bill. I believe that one of its most powerful duties should be that recommended by my hon. Friend in his amendment, namely, the duty and responsibility to examine employment practices in the industry. Those employment practices may reveal not only deficiencies in the way in which benefits are paid to fishermen but also, as my hon. Friend said, in regard to safety benefits and employment practices. A considerable amount needs to be done. Other amendments may provide the opportunity to explain in detail what needs to be done.
Nevertheless, this amendment places upon the authority the responsibility to compare practices in similar industries. Seafaring is not entirely the same, but it is similar in some of the circumstances and in the environment in which fishermen work. If one compares the safety figures for industries of this kind, fishing, seafaring and diving have an accident and death rate 40, 50, 60 per cent. or more above that in the most dangerous occupation ashore, which is normally considered to be mining.
We believe that much of that is due to the fact that extra safety precautions have not been introduced in this industry. In the past, the philosophy has always been that greater discipline means greater safety. The irony is that workers in this industry have always laboured under the greatest discipline exercised in any work force and at the same time have had the worst safety record of any work force. That is the central philosophy behind a great deal of the legislation against which we have fought relating to those workers.
I am glad to say that some changes have taken place as a result of the Merchant Shipping Acts. Nevertheless, there is value in having a central authority, because it would be able to look at the problems constantly complained of by the workers in the industry and produce a useful report covering the peculiarities of the industry.
7.30 pm
Mention has already been made of the disadvantages experienced by workers in this area, particularly in relation to benefits. The speeches of other Labour Members reflect the different types of fishing which exist in different ports, be it share fishing, industrial fishing, or a mixture of fishing, which I believe is the position in Grimsby.
Benefits can vary according to the type of industry. For example, there is the question whether one is considered to share in a catch and, therefore, to be classed as self-employed or whether one is an industrial worker for redundancy purposes but is required to serve two years on the vessel. Of course, the articles in the contract of employment of a seafarer or fisherman cover a period


considerably less than two years. In reality, while a man may work in the industry for 20 years, he may not be eligible for redundancy pay if he has moved around from company to company or from ship to ship. Therefore, the authority could consider the problem of what articles seamen or fishermen should sign.
My own industry was able to get a cumulative consideration under a special redundancy scheme which allowed us to be exempt from the State scheme. That dealt with the peculiarities of shipping. Exactly the same argument applies to fishing, but fishing has never been given that exemption. While on the one hand the industry would argue"Of course our benefits are very good and are the same as what a shore worker gets", the difficulty is that a fisherman is not eligible because he does not meet the two-year requirement because of the nature and circumstances of his employment.
That is one small example. Hon. Members have mentioned others. We think that it would be useful if a central authority were able to look at the advances given to other workers when this House passes legislation. Instead of saying"It is difficult to apply it to seamen or fishermen", a body which deals with fishing could identify the peculiarities and suggest how those advances could be achieved in the same legislation in order to overcome the difficulties which are normally used as arguments for not granting those advances.
A classic example is the use of gangways on ships. Because pilots and men who must gain access to a vessel cannot use a gangway at sea, we introduce special legislation to define the gangway and to make it a requirement. When it comes to a docker going on board a ship, there is a requirement for a gangway to be provided as a statutory responsibility. Unfortunately, when it comes to seamen and fishermen who eat, sleep and live on board ship in different parts of the world, we are told that the rise and fall of the water in the docks make it difficult to provide a gangway and that, therefore, there will be an exemption which inevitably means that a gangway is not provided. It is an excuse not to provide it. For too many years, such anomalies have contributed to a deterioration in fishermen's conditions.
I very much welcome the amendment. It is useful in order to expose the anomalies relating to marine workers, be they divers, fishermen or seafarers. We could even learn something from the Community. Some Community countries are prepared to tie aid to an improvement in workers' conditions. Very little notice has been taken of that in all the money that has come from Government to the industry, particularly in the port of Hull. According to many letters which hon. Members receive, fishermen are aggrieved that, while a lot of money has been given to the industry, they have been denied such things as redundancy and benefits which they feel they have sacrificed as a result of the decline in the industry. Parliament has done nothing. It has simply taken the easy way out. It has allowed these anomalies to continue, which means exemption, as a result of which the fishermen have been denied these benefits.
The amendment would place a most useful responsibility on the authority. It is one that I would very much welcome.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: In considering that amendment, it is important that we look first at the powers of the authority under clause 3. I direct the attention of the House to those powers, particularly those contained in clause 3(1)(a) and (b). As the Bill stands:
The Authority shall have the power—

(a) to carry out research and development with respect to any matters relating to the sea fish industry;
(b) to give advice on any such matters."


Therefore, the Bill as drafted gives wide discretionary powers—I acknowledge that they are discretionary—to study matters affecting the industry, through research and development. As a consequence of having carried out that research and development, the authority can then give advice on any of those matters. Therefore, in a wide and comprehensive sense, what the amendment seeks to do is wholly within the powers of the Sea Fish Industry Authority as the Bill is presently drafted. As a result, the powers contained in the amendment are already covered in the Bill.
The amendment puts on the authority the duty that in relation to important aspects for fishermen, it could be required to carry out certain work and research and to publish reports in relation to employment practices. I should point out that as drafted the amendment states:
It shall be the duty of the Authority, if requested by any section of a trade union … to publish reports.
To that extent it goes further than the discretionary powers, in that the authority would be"required" to do so.
Although the authority has this wide discretionary power and could cover the matters that the amendment covers, we must also remember that the authority that we are appointing will have a majority of representatives from the industry. As I have said, its duties are framed in general terms in order to permit the maximum scope and to grant it power to establish its own priorities for action, expenditure and so on. My view will probably come as no surprise to the hon. Gentleman, because I resisted similar amendments in Committee. I do not think it appropriate to try to impose narrow responsibilities on the authority. Having established the authority, and given the nature of its composition, the House and Ministers should leave it to work out its own priorities. It must decide what to do in light of representations received, either from outside or from within the authority. That is the appropriate way for the authority properly to carry out its powers.
The discretionary powers of the authority were drawn up on purpose. That was done consciously, so as to give the authority the discretion to decide its own priorities. Without in any way trying to belittle or minimise the importance of the matters covered by the amendment, I believe that it is better to let the matter rest where it is at present. We should let the authority decide its own priorities, having regard to its own views and the representations that it may receive.
In saying that I do not belittle the topics covered by the amendment. My answer would be the same with regard to any other topic. This is very much a matter of principle about the way in which we should conduct the affairs of the authority. Therefore, although I understand the feelings that led to the amendment, I must advise the House to reject it.

Mr. McNamara: I listened to the Minister with a degree of sadness. I understand his attitude and accept that we sought to impose a duty rather than a discretion, as exists under the provisions of clause 3. On more pointed


amendments, we shall drive this home to a Division. I am sure that the new authority will read carefully what the Minister has said in this important subject. However, on this occasion, I suggest that we should not divide the House.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) for the kind things that he said about me. However, the House should bear in mind that in recent years several vessels have been lost at sea for reasons that remain unknown. The owners were compensated for their vessels, for what was known to be the catch, and for every material part of the vessels. The dependants of crews received nothing for that loss of life. Nobody could be blamed. I merely ask whether that is a good employment practice. Perhaps the new authority should direct its attention to that and should ensure that those who go down to the sea in ships should know that if they perish their next of kin will be properly compensated.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3

POWERS OF THE AUTHORITY

Amendments made: No. 5, in page 3, line 5 leave out 'make loans or grants' and insert
'give financial assistance (by way of loan, grant or guarantee)'.

No. 6, in page 3, line 6 after 'forming', insert 'carrying on'.—[Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

Mr. Robert Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 3, line 9 at end insert—
'(g) to make regulations to ensure operational safety in any matters relating to the fish industry, to appoint inspectors to ensure compliance with such regulations, and to keep records of accidents in this respect.'
I sometimes think that one can judge the health of an industry by the amount of nostalgia about what the industry might have been like in bygone days. The closer that an industry is to extinction the more nostalgia there is. If we were to discuss the fate of the fishing industry in such terms, and if we were to set aside the statistics, we might well conclude that the increase in folk songs and so on shows that the industry is approaching extinction.
In many circles a romantic myth seems to be growing up about what life was like at sea in the good old days, and to some extent about what life is like today. I have been connected with the fishing industry for a long time, but thankfully, I have never gone to sea to earn my living. I do not know whether that means that I had better sense. However, I am the first for many generations—on both my paternal and maternal sides—not to have been involved in seafaring of one kind or another. From bitter experience I know—as almost everyone connected with the industry knows—that the sea fishing industry is a hard, cruel and even brutal industry. I say that not just because of the loss of life, or because of accidents at sea, but because many mothers, wives and girlfriends spend sleepless nights during extremely bad weather. They wonder what has happened to their loved ones at sea and whether they will return from the harsh environment from which they seek their living.
7.45 pm
I made that point because I wished to show that behind every statistic lay a family that had suffered the grievous

loss of a relative. Often the family has also suffered grievous financial loss. The statistics confirm our worst fears about safety in the industry. I shall not go into the figures in the same amount of detail as I did in Committee. However, in the past two decades there have been 647 fatalities in the fishing industry. Over the same period, 453 vessels have been lost at sea. The figure includes vessels that have gone missing without any trace. That is a serious position.
How can the seriousness of the situation be measured? There is no feeling about statistics. If one simply quotes them one does not convey any measurement. One method of gauging them is to compare the fishing industry with two other industries that are generally regarded as being the most dangerous, namely, the construction and mining industries. I do not for one minute suggest that the tragedies that occcur in the mining or construction industries are tragedies of no account, which can be set aside. I take them very seriously. By quoting the figures, I do not wish to make any unfavourable comment on the two industries. I simply wish to show how the fishing industry stands in comparison with those two industries.
The best comparison can probably be made by considering the incidence of fatalities per 100,000 at risk. In 1961, the incidence rate in the fishing industry was 114.5 per 100,000 at risk. By 1978 that figure had increased to 247.3. That means that the fatality rate is getting worse. In 1961 the incidence rate in the coal industry was 39.8 per 100,000 at risk. By 1978, that rate had improved to 25.4. In the construction industry the comparable figure for 1961 was 22.1. By 1978, the rate had improved to 12.1 per 100,000 at risk.
Despite all the difficulties of comparing one industry with another, one aspect remains clear, namely, that the incidence rate for fatalities in the fishing industry is 20 times that in the coal mining industry. It would be something to be seriously worried about if there had been no improvement—if the figures had remained exactly the same as those for 20 years ago. The fact is that those who go down to the sea in ships seem to be going to sea at a time when the industry is becoming more dangerous with the passing of every year.
There may be a number of reasons for that. It is difficult to say with certainty why so many vessels have been lost and why there are so many fatal accidents. In fishing debates, it is not popular to point out that the commercial pressures on skippers, who face heavy debts and who find it difficult to pay their way from voyage to voyage, may force them to go to sea when they would not otherwise do so. Once at sea, they tend to continue to fish even when the weather forecast predicts deteriorating conditions. They continue to fish because it is commercially necessary that they should fish for as long as possible.
It is said that these are some of the reasons for such a high number of fatalities and loss of vessels. The fact is that the industry does not seem to take safety as seriously as one might think. It is perhaps the old story of familiarity breeding contempt—that because fishermen go to sea in such dangerous conditions, year in and year out, they believe that accidents will not happen to them and that they will go to sea and come back.
There is an appallingly low level of training. A document produced by the Transport and General Workers Union called"Fishing—The Way Ahead" quotes statistics from the Sea Fisheries Training Council, indicating that at least half of the existing labour force of the seagoing


industry has never received training in survival, fire-fighting or first aid. It states that 60 per cent. of existing fishermen began working life without any formal training and that many young people continue to enter the industry in this manner. That state of affairs must not be allowed to continue for one day longer than is necessary.
A suggestion put by the Transport and General Workers Union, which I believe could be adopted by the new authority if the amendment is accepted, is that in addition to the measures taken in the field of training, certificates of competence for vessels and officers, and terms and conditions of employment where these govern working conditions, serious consideration should be given to the proposal that, with larger crews of nine men or more, there should be a safety representative to represent the crew in drawing up proposals under the skipper's authority that would provide for safer working practices on board the vessels.
We take the matter of safety seriously, as, I am sure, do the Government. One of the difficulties under which the fishing industry operates is that responsibility for safety at sea rests not with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food but with the Department of Trade. If the issue of safety at sea is to be taken seriously and given the high priority that it deserves, it should be taken much closer to the fishing industry. There is a distinct difference between the safety measures that need to be practised in large, ocean-going ships, large cargo vessels, tankers, and so on, and the smaller vessels that go fishing. They operate in a totally different environment. The industries are totally different.
It is possibly right that large vessels should remain the responsibility of the Department of Trade. We believe, however, that safety in the fishing industry is of such importance that it should be the responsibility of the new Sea Fish Industry Authority. The authority should have power to make regulations to ensure operational safety. There should also be a power to appoint inspectors to ensure compliance with the regulations and to ensure that a proper record of accidents is kept. Unless we begin to build up a day-to-day knowledge of what happens we cannot make proposals for the future that will ensure that fishing becomes a much safer occupation for those who go to sea and to ensure that the price paid for the fish on the slab is cash and not the blood that fishermen have shed when going to sea in ships.

Mr. McNamara: My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) has eschewed the privilege of going over all the compelling facts and figures that he gave in Committee. In some ways, I regret his decision. It is possible that he would have obtained far more publicity for the dangers and difficulties associated with the accident rates had he given them on the Floor of the House.
This is one of the more important amendments before the House upon which I hope my right hon. and hon. Friends will join us in the Division Lobby. When the matter was debated in Committee the Minister of State told my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North that the power to take this action existed under clause 3(1 )(a) and (b) and that the authority, if it so wished, could do something about it. We happen to believe that this is such an important and direct matter that it should not be left in

any state of uncertainty or subject to that degree of discretion. We believe that the authority should have the power to do what we propose. If it were enumerated as one of its powers, the authority would carry it out.
The Minister also argued in Committee that the proposal would cut into the powers of the Health and Safety Executive, and that the question of vessels at sea was, in any case, covered by the Department of Trade. The hon. Gentleman cannot put forward that argument in addition to saying that in any event the authority has the power under clause 3( 1 )(a) and (b). He cannot have it both ways. If the power exists in the bill, the Minister cannot say that the proposal cuts into the authority of the Health and Safety Executive. We maintain that these matters of grave concern to the industry should be the responsibility of the authority.
My mind goes back to Christmas 1965, when there was a fatality at sea. I was a new hon. Member. The fatality occurred before the sad loss of the"Kingston Peridot", the"St. Romanus" and the"Ross Cleveland". The fatality occurred if I recall correctly, on the Newfoundland Banks. The secretary of one of the oldest associations in Hull, referring to accidents at sea, said:
Yes, it is true that men are sometimes washed overboard but, then, they are often washed back.
I asked a question in the House about the number of occasions on which men had been washed overboard, how often had they been washed back, and how often had they landed on their trawler of origin. I am still awaiting an answer. Actually, I was surprised to get the question past the Table Office.
That was the start of a campaign, in which many hon. Members took part, to try to find out something about the fishing industry. No firm duties and obligations were laid upon vessel owners or skippers to keep precise and exact details of accidents that happened aboard trawlers. Fatalities and perhaps even incidents in which people were washed overboard and washed back were recorded, but a great number of accidents went unrecorded. One of the terrible aspects of the list read out by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North, is that it concerned fatalities. There were, however, a large number of people who were seriously injured in accidents on trawlers, the details of which were not recorded.
8 pm
In 1968 we lost three trawlers. We had the establishment of the Milner Holland report. One of the strange features is that the number of fatalities at sea has remained almost as high since that time. In 1974 fatalities were almost as high as in 1968, despite the welcome improvements that the Milner Holland recommendations created in the design, safety and capability of fishing vessels, especially those of the deep-water fleet.
These are serious matters for the House. They happen to occur in remote places. They are remote from the great metropolis and the suburbia of the Midlands. They take place within small communities. As a result, it is almost accepted that such fatalities should be considered as part of a way of life. I do not believe—this applies generally to hon. Members—that fatalities, injuries and accidents in any form of occupation should be accepted as part of a way of life. If an individual is prepared to take such a risk, he should go into the Armed Forces and be properly paid and compensated for the risks that he has chosen to take..
It was Sir Walter Scott, in"The Antiquary", who wrote:


It's no fish ye're buying—it's men's lives.
That is what we are discussing. That is why we believe that we should press the amendment to a Division. We are concerned with men's lives and men's safety. We are also concerned about the effect that a fatality or serious accident can have upon a fishing family or fishing community. For that reason I trust that my right hon. and hon. Friends will support the amendment in the Lobby.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I make it clear at the beginning of my remarks so that there is no misunderstanding—I felt that there may have been a slight misunderstanding following the speech of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara)-that there is no power vested in the authority to carry out a regulatory function in safety matters. I have not checked the record, but I am certain that I never said that the authority had such a function. If I did say it, I did not intend to do so.
I said in Committee—I repeat my words in the event of the record of the proceedings in Committee being incorrect, or if I used words carelessly in Committee—that the authority has powers to carry out research and development. It can give advice on safety matters. However, it does not rest with the authority to regulate matters of safety under the Bill as drafted. The amendment seeks to give the authority power to make regulations and to provide it with a regulatory power. It seeks to extend the Bill.
Consequently, I do not reject the amendment on the ground that its contents are covered by the Bill. I merely say that the Bill enables the authority to give advice on safety. The authority could interest itself in such matters if it so wished, but that would fall short of what the amendment seeks.

Mr. McNamara: If the Minister reads his remarks of 3 February in Committee, he will note that his most recent remarks somewhat soften, if they do not go against, his earlier comments. Of course, it could be a semantic argument. However, I was left with the impression that the Minister could require the authority to act more directly. In Committee he said:
In this connection, the powers of the authority can be used in connection with safety matters without amending the Bill. For example, the authority could involve itself in safety research, or in safety training in the way that I have indicated. It also has the power to advise on 'matters relating to the sea fish industry'. This would enable it to pass advice on safety matters to the appropriate bodies within the industry. The Bill also gives Ministers the power to require the Sea Fish Industry Authority to undertake work as their agent. Therefore, if Ministers felt that there was a need for a new initiative in this area, the authority could be required to carry out that work. I shall give one instance of this."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D;3 February 1981, c. 132.]

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: With respect, the hon. Gentleman is confusing the issue. There is a great difference between what I said in Committee, which is correct and which I stand by—namely, that Ministers can give directions to the authority, and they can do so on safety matters—and the amendment. The amendment seeks to give direct power to the authority, which is totally different. There is nothing contradictory between what I said in Committee and what I am saying now.
It is not appropriate for the authority to be given regulatory powers to deal with safety matters. We have given to the Health and Safety Executive and the Department of Trade direct responsibility for safety at sea

and safety in the fishing industry. A Government Department and a Government agency are already charged with the direct responsibility for making the regulations that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to give to the authority. In the executive and the Department we already have the necessary expertise and organisation to implement the regulatory function. I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect whether we shall gain anything by proliferating activity and responsibility as he proposes.
The fishing industry is already closely involved with the Department of Trade in efforts to improve safety standards. Surely it is appropriate that that channel should continue to be used. There are many proposals for amendments to the existing arrangements currently under consideration by the Department of Trade and representatives of the industry. The present arrangements are accepted, are understood and are working. That is the view of the industry and the organisations that are involved. If we were to give the authority a new and formal role, we would be likely to hamper the direct and effective links that have been established between the Department of Trade and the industry's organisations. It would not necessarily be in the interests of the industry to add yet another intermediary.
I ask the House to reject the amendment. I do not suggest that these matters are unimportant. I acknowledge that they are extremely important and I acknowledge the strong feeling of all those who have participated in the debate. I recognise the need for attention to safety matters. That is the view of many in the industry. However, if the amendment were accepted, it would proliferate responsibility and would hinder rather than assist the general cause which we all support, namely, to ensure that we have more effective safety arrangements for those who go to sea.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I accept that both sides of the House and Government Back Benchers take seriously the subject of safety in the industry. Therefore, I accept what the Minister says. The difference between us is whether the existing system is the best way of ensuring that safety.
There is an anomaly in the Minister's argument. He mentioned the activities of the Sea Fisheries Training Council, but that body is purely voluntary. I am not saying that it does not do valuable work and I do not wish to cast doubts on the work of the people involved in it. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) referred to what the Minister said in Committee. In talking about where the power should lie in relation to safety the Minister said:
In this connection, the powers of the authority can be used in connection with safety matters without amending the Bill. For example, the authority could involve itself in safety research, or in safety training in the way that I have indicated. It also has the power to advise on 'matters relating to the sea fish industry'. This would enable it to pass advice on safety matters to the appropriate bodies within the industry.
Thus, the Minister was accepting that there is a safety role for the new body. Therefore the question arises: to what degree should the new authority be involved in safety matters? That is a matter of degree, but an important degree.
The Minister advanced an important argument in relation to acceptance of the amendment. He said:
The Bill also gives Ministers more power to require the Sea Fish Industry Authority to undertake work as their agent"—
that is, the Government's agent—


Therefore, if Ministers felt that there was a need for a new initiative in this area, the authority could be required to carry out that work. I shall give one instance of this. As members of the Committee know, the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board are currently, on behalf of the Government, undertaking safety checks on vessels."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 3 February 1980; c. 132.]
The Government have conceded that here there is direct intervention by the Minister, using the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board as agents for carrying out safety checks.
Given the Minister's acceptance of a number of ways in which the new authority can be involved in safety matters, our argument is that it would lead to better safety in the industry and a much more cohesive and concentrated investigation of safety matters if responsibility and authority were given to the new body instead of leaving it as an agent that sometimes gives advice, sometimes does the work and sometimes discusses matters voluntarily within the new Sea Fisheries Training Council.
I accept the good faith of the Government, and I do not charge them with not taking safety seriously, but it is our contention that the issue is vital because of the fatalities and the many thousands of accidents, some of them very serious, that occur every year. It is serious enough to give the new Sea Fish Industry Authority the power to regulate the industry and to make safety one of its prime matters of paramount importance. I hope that my hon. Friends will join me in the Lobby in pressing the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 93, Noes 142.

Division No. 94]
[8.15 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Homewood, William


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Hooley, Frank


Beith, A. J.
Howells, Geraint


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hughes, Mark (Durham,)


Brown, Hugh D.(Provan)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't' n &amp;P)
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Kilfedder, James A.


Coleman, Donald
Lestor, Miss Joan


Concannon, Rt Hon J.D.
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)


Cowans, Harry
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Crowther, J.S.
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'dW)


Cryer, Bob
McCartney, Hugh


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McElhone, Frank


Dalyell, Tam
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Davis, T.(B'ham,Stechf'd)
McKelvey, William


Deakins, Eric
McNamara, Kevin


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
McWilliam, John


Dewar, Donald
Marks, Kenneth


Dixon, Donald
Marshall, D (G'gowS'ton)


Dobson, Frank
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Dormand, Jack
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Duffy, A. E. P.
Maxton, John


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Maynard, Miss Joan


Eadie, Alex
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Eastham, Ken
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Evans, John (Newton)
Morton, George


Ewing, Harry
O'Neill, Martin


George, Bruce
Palmer, Arthur


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Park, George


Ginsburg, David
Penhaligon, David


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Hardy, Peter
Prescott, John


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Haynes, Frank
Roberts, Aibert (Normanton)


Hogg, N. (ED unb't'nshire)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Home Robertson, John
Sever, John



Silkin, Rt Hon J.(Deptford)
Welsh, Michael


Silverman, Julius
White, Frank R.


Skinner, Dennis
Whitlock, William


Spearing, Nigel
Wigley, Dafydd


Spriggs, Leslie
Woolmer, Kenneth 

Steel, Rt Hon David



Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Strang, Gavin
Mr. Austin Mitchell and


Tinn, James
Mr. James Hamilton.


Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)



NOES


Alexander, Richard
Kimball, Marcus


Ancram, Michael
Lang, Ian


Arnold, Tom
Lawrence, Ivan


Aspinwall, Jack
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Atkins, Robert (Preston N)
LeMarchant, Spencer


Banks, Robert
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Luce, Richard


Berry, Hon Anthony
Lyell, Nicholas


Bevan, DavidGilroy
MacGregor, John


Biggs-Davison, John
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Blackburn, John
McNair-Wilson, M.(/V'bury)


Braine, Sir Bernard
McQuarrie, Albert


Bright, Graham
Major, John


Brinton, Tim
Mates, Michael


Brooke, Hon Peter
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Brotherton, Michael
Mawby, Ray


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Bryan, Sir Paul
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Buck, Antony
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Bulmer, Esmond
Moate, Roger


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Morgan, Geraint


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Murphy, Christopher


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Myles, David


Chapman, Sydney
Neale, Gerrard


Churchill, W.S.
Needham, Richard


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Nelson, Anthony


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Neubert, Michael


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Onslow, Cranley


Colvin, Michael
Osborn, John


Cope, John
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Cormack, Patrick
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)


Corrie, John
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Dorrell, Stephen
Pawsey, James


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Pollock, Alexander


Dover, Denshore
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Dunn, Robert (Darftord)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Dykes, Hugh
Renton, Tim


Elliott, Sir William
Rhodes James, Robert


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Rossi, Hugh


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'ghN)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Fookes, Miss Janet
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Forman, Nigel
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Speller, Tony


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Spence, John


Goodlad, Alastair
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Gorst, John
Sproat, lain


Gow, Ian
Squire, Robin


Gower, Sir Raymond
Stainton, Keith


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Stanbrook, lvor


Gray, Hamish
Stevens, Martin


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
StradlingThomas, J.


Grist, Ian
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Grylls, Michael
Tebbit, Norman


Gummer, John Selwyn
Temple-Morris, Peter


Haselhurst, Alan
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Thompson, Donald


Hawksley, Warren
Thornton, Malcolm


Heddle, John
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Wall, Patrick


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Waller, Gary


Hordern, Peter
Ward, John


Howell, Ralph (NN orfolk)
Warren, Kenneth


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Watson, John


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Wells, John (Maidstone)






Wells, Bowen
Younger, Rt Hon George


Wheeler, John



Wickenden, Keith
Tellers for the Noes:


Winterton, Nicholas
Mr. Tony Newton, and


Wolfson, Mark
Mr Carol Mather.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. McNamara: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 3, line 9, at end insert—
'(g) to make provision for the decasualisation of full-time employee fishermen not being share fishermen, to ensure that no such full-time fishermen by reason of their employment, shall fail to benefit from social security legislation available to industrial workers not so engaged.'.
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) will note that the amendment has been drafted to meet the point that he raised in Committee.
Of all the issues that rankle in what is left of the deep-sea industry' in Hull, the one that rankles most, after many years of campaigning by the union and by my hon. Friends, is that we have failed to achieve a regular system of employment for our fishermen. Indeed, at the time of the Icelandic dispute the union and my hon. Friends were led to believe that one of the benefits to come out of that dispute would be that employment in the fishing industry and the deep-sea industry in the ports of Fleetwood, Grimsby and Hull would be regularised and that, for the first time, there would be a proper system for employment of deep-sea fishermen.
Why is this matter so important? I shall not weary the House with the long explanation that I gave in Committee. I shall try to paraphrase it. Deep-sea fishermen, while they consider that they are employed by one company, are in fact employed only voyage by voyage for which they sign their articles when they go on board ship. When, after being at sea for a fortnight, or for any period of up to three or four months, they sign off the articles, they sign off the ship and the period of employment comes to an end.
That means a number of things. First, they do not have a regular pattern of employment for national insurance purposes. Secondly, they do not have long enough—the minimum period is two years, if I remember correctly—to qualify under the redundancy payments Acts. Thirdly, because of the short period of their employment, they frequently cannot benefit from the advantages that are given to working people in the employment protection legislation.
Said coldly and logically like that, the matter does not excite great concern, but when it is translated to the home or life of the individual fisherman and his family it causes tremendous difficulties. For example, a fisherman rarely obtains unemployment benefit. He frequently has to depend upon supplementary benefit. A fisherman cannot gain wage-related benefits because he has not been employed long enough when he becomes unemployed. There are no severance payment schemes or redundancy payment schemes for him. He finds it difficult, even under some of the old schemes, to qualify for an adequate pension because in many cases his working life ends at 55.
Thus, because of the casual nature of their employment, such fishermen as are left are at an enormous disadvantage compared with their fellow citizens. They are the heroes, the people about whom songs are written, they are the subject of many toasts and of much admiration for courage and virility. These are easy words, but they

constitute empty phrases when it comes to what the State is prepared to do to help these men when they go to it in time of need.
The union has campaigned for a long time. We felt at the time of the second cod war that we had achieved our goal. That was under the Labour Administration, and we regarded ourselves for a variety of reasons as having been badly let down when we failed to secure our aim. Towards the end of the Labour Administration, the employers and the union reached agreement on a scheme to come into operation in the late summer of 1979. All the documents had been agreed and all the papers had been sent to the Ministry for approval. Mr. John Boyd and Mr. David Cairns for the owners and the union respectively both regarded the scheme as being ready for approval. They waited. It was lack of progress that caused us to table our amendment in Committee. We wanted to discover what had happened. We felt that the Government were dragging their feet. They had asked the industry to produce a scheme. It was produced, but now the Government have not implemented it.
8.30 pm
When the Minister replied to our debate on the general question of decasualisation, he said that responsibility in the matter was not his. He fairly and properly said that it lay with his colleagues in the Departments of Employment and Health and Social Security. He went on to say that he had brought himself up to date on the matter because he appreciated that it was an issue of concern. But he said that the industry was dragging its feet. That was a serious statement. It led me to inquire further as to the facts. I can assure the Minister that it still is within the Ministry's power to produce an order to introduce the scheme.
There has been some discussion about the question of redundancy. At the time the scheme was agreed the union and the owners felt, as I believe they still do, that the scheme could go into operation in spite of any arguments about redundancy. The Government do not seem prepared to move further on that matter, and that is causing considerable concern. The longer it goes on the more difficult it will be to identify those people who should be compensated for loss of employment as a result of the cod war, of our having joined the EEC or of the change in fishing patterns.
Whenever the Minister has spoken at the Dispatch Box on the question of EEC fishing policy and our disagreements with the Community, I have asked him whether, regardless of the discussion about limits, he has obtained anything from the social fund to compensate fishermen in Hull, Grimsby, Fleetwood and Aberdeen for losing their jobs as a result of Community policies. His answer has been"No". I have been chided on occasions for breaching the united approach by the industry on the problems caused by Community policies. I chided the Labour Government about their contrariness over this issue. I shall not spare this Government. The industry and my union regard decasualisation as a matter of fundamental importance because men, out of dignity, are entitled to the same rights as their fellow citizens. If the industry is not capable of achieving that, the Government should do what the Labour Government should have done.
If we regularise the pattern of fishing, especially in the former deep-sea ports, we must have a system of regular employment for fishermen along the lines of the scheme that I put forward and explained in Committee, namely,


an amalgam of the Merchant Navy pool scheme and the registered dock labour scheme. The matter is of vital importance to the families in the area. They must know what will happen.
Every time that the unemployment figures are published in Hull, I have pencilled on the bottom the current number of unemployed fishermen—500, 600 or more. Those men are registered as fishermen, but many will never get another ship. My hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) and I see people in our surgeries who ask how they can obtain another job at sea. If they cannot obtain a job at sea, they want to know who will train them and what will be their future opportunities. We have to shrug, express sympathy, and say that we cannot do a great deal for them. But a great deal could be done if the scheme for decasualisation were introduced.
The amendment meets the point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East in Committee. We are seeking to provide that the authority should be responsible for introducing a scheme for decasualisation, which successive Governments have failed to do, and which the industry has not been able to do. We must put the reason for doing so on the statute book, namely, to ensure that the deep-sea fishermen who depend for their livelihoods not only on their share of the catch but upon wages and bonuses should have at least the same rights accruing to them as accrue to their fellow industrial workers.
There is one final reason why the Government should put such provision on the statute book. The fishing industry is demoralised. That is not wholly the Government's fault. I say that out of charity; it is Lent and I must be charitable, even to Conservatives. The industry is demoralised because of the failure to reach agreement at Brussels. No one knows what will happen to the common fisheries policy, what shape the new industry will take, and what investment will take place. Uncertainty at Brussels and the 200-mile limit have affected many other branches of the industry such as processing, canning and distribution. Grimsby, Hull and Fleetwood have seen the disappearance of many of the large firms that have been associated with the deep-sea industry.
Decasualisation is owed to the fishermen of Britain. We have a duty to stop the demoralisation. We must show the areas involved that both the Government and the House still think that they are worth something, that they should be given attention, that they should be given an opportunity, and that they should be treated properly. One of the best ways in which that can be done is by first introducing a proper system of decasualisation and then, on the basis of that dealing with the question of redundancy and severance pay which will be needed in this industry when it is restructured.

Mr. McQuarrie: I listened with considerable interest to the comments of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) on this amendment. As those of us who served on the Committee know, at that stage he put forward a similar amendment very cogently, but without success. I should have been happier in this case if it had not been so divisive as to exclude the share fishermen.
I am at a loss to understand how the amendment will work. Its purpose is

to make provision for the decasualisation of full-time employee fishermen not being share fishermen, to ensure that no such full-time fishermen by reason of their employment, shall fail to benefit from social security legislation available to industrial workers not so engaged.
Were these fishermen to be employed full-time they and their employers would pay national insurance contributions and PAYE on engagement, and when they came back from the sea they would be entitled to social security benefits. If that is not the case, I suggest that the amendment should be worded a little differently, to give us a clearer indication of what is behind it.
To speak for the section to which I referred, those who are not share fishermen, legislation is required to cover the fishing industry as a whole, so that even the share fishermen will be entitled to some form of social security benefit. In my constituency, in the dispute a few weeks ago 700 to 800 share fishermen applied for social security benefits but were unable to get them because there is no legislation covering them. Where there are definite reasons—for example if a vessel is being repaired or if a vessel cannot go to sea—the fishermen may get social security benefits. It is not just a question of going to the social security office and drawing benefits. It is a matter of waiting for the insurance officer, the tribunal and various other factors. In one case that I handled not long ago, it took over two years to get the matter clarified before payment was made.
I should have been happy if the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central had made a more general attempt to persuade the Minister to bring in some form of legislation that would cover that sort of thing. If these people are full-time fishermen there is no reason why they should not enjoy the benefits of social security. This is something that should perhaps be covered by the Employment Act, rather than by the new Sea Fish Industry Authority.
During the third sitting of the Committee, when referring to a document produced by the Transport and General Workers Union, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central said:
Under the heading: 'Employment of Fishermen and Ancillary Workers in a Changing Industry', it states:
'The system of casual employment in the sea-going sector of the industry must be eliminated by the enactment of legislation and substituted by a more humane employment scheme for fishermen. This employment scheme must provide the fishermen with all the rights and benefits accorded to workers in shore-based industries such as continuity of employment, a regular minimum income, sickness and injury benefit, a pension and severance payment fund'."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 29 January 1981; c. 110.]
I agree with those sentiments, but I do not consider that we should insert this provision in the Bill and make it the responsibility of the Sea Fish Industry Authority. I suggest that this matter should be dealt with in a general way by the Department of Employment. I sincerely hope that my hon. Friend will indicate that he will pass these comments on to the Department of Employment so that we do not have the problems that have emanated from my constituency and have rightly been referred to by the hon. Member for Kingstom upon Hull, Central.

Mr. Prescott: I fully support the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara), particularly about the most contentious issue of decasualised labour. The lack of


identity of regular work associated with one employer or industry has been a constant problem for the fisherman in the denial of benefits. While he may be associated with the industry, he has tended to be identified legally in the terms of the contract into which he entered as a fisherman—the articles of voyage of the vessel on which he sails. Employment tends to be identified with the time served on the ship. As there may be a considerable period between one voyage and the next, that can sometimes be identified as paid leave.
There is some continuity if a man gets a ship right away, but all too often it is not the same ship to which he goes back. That therefore denies him the continuity generally associated with the regularity of employment, which is the important feature in distinguishing the casual nature of the employment.
It has sometimes been argued that to be regularly employed by one company made a man a company man, and that gave him some regularity of employment. In reality, in law it is usually the articles of voyage with which the fisherman or the seaman is identified. If he has a three-months voyage and three months ashore, the continuity of employment for employment benefit and other purposes of regular employment is associated solely with the three months' sea time. That becomes the active period for the purpose of employment, which determines whether he is entitled to the social benefits about which we are talking.
As the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) said, in the amendment we are concerned with the ending of casualisation and the identity of full-time employee fishermen with social security legislation.
I understand the fears expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central. Nevertheless, the clause, which deals with the powers of the authority, provides discretionary powers to give advice on such matters and to carry out research. We hope that the discretionary powers will be used in the way that has been indicated, certainly in regard to advice and research.
The amendment asks for that power to be used for the ending of casualisation in the industry. It is important to recognise that the benefits of regular employment are not confined solely to social security, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central would readily agree. My hon. Friend used the powerful example of redundancy and social security benefits. As we made clear earlier, identity of sea service becomes an important factor in determining whether a fisherman is entitled to redundancy pay. Therefore, to be denied these benefits causes considerable concern in Hull, particularly to fishermen who probably have no future prospects of getting back into this industry.
The features of casualisation are known to anybody in maritime industries. I was a seaman for 10 years. I belong to the National Union of Seamen. We had casual employment. Interestingly enough, since the war it has always been identified with the docks, ships and fishermen. It is also associated with the North Sea oil industry, because similar problems arise concerning divers and so on. Indeed, my union was actively involved. It took a great deal of industrial muscle to end casualisation in the docks industry.
When this country was at war, it was decided to have regular employment practices and to have seamen regularly available. Therefore, the casual nature of the seafarers' employment was ended. Unfortunately for

fishermen, there has not been the same consideration. It is apparently thought that fishermen are a special breed—a gambling breed—they like to share in the profits from the fish which they catch, they are not interested in their conditions of employment as long as they can have a few bob when the ship docks and can go out and have a good time before catching the next tide. That has always been the justification for a number of intolerable and deplorable practices which have continued in this industry, with its casual employment.
Two aspects of that casual employment have created many penalties for both fishermen and their relatives. I made some remarks about redundancy earlier. When I registered for employment as a seaman I did not register solely with the employer or with a ship. I registered with the central pool. I was a seaman who was identified in the central pool. Whether I sailed with Cunard, P & O, or any other line, I had a record of employment that guaranteed me holiday pay and redundancy pay. If there were more seamen than jobs, a regular redundancy system came into play. A record could be found of my service in the industry. Compensation could be given for the period of service that I had given to the industry.
The same could be done for fishing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central pointed out, the union and other hon. Members from the Hull area have constantly pressed that the suggested scheme should have been accepted by Governments, including the previous Administration. That was probably most relevant during the cod war with Iceland.
It is well known that I disagree with my colleagues and was inclined to support Iceland's case in the cod war. It was central to the argument that if Britain wanted to adjust to that situation, compensation needed to be made.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker), who was a Minister in the Department of Employment at that time, managed to obtain a considerable amount of money from the Treasury to be used for redundancy payments. The Member for Grimsby at that time was Mr. Tony Crosland. He promised compensation from a deal arising out of one agreement with Iceland. That money was secured, but unfortunately it was not given to the fishing industry, although the general agreement was that the money could be used for decasualisation.
The reality was that the money was not given to the fishermen who were made redundant as a result of the Icelandic agreement, nor was it used to set up a decasualisation scheme. The only people who benefited were those in the Treasury, who got the money back. That was unfortunate, because the fishermen did not get anything out of that agreement, although the industry got some money. The industry might not have felt that the amount of money was sufficient. The ships were compensated, but the men were not. That is a deplorable principle for the House to endorse, and it should be changed.
The Minister is concerned with concluding an agreement with the Community that inevitably will involve a certain amount of compensation. Compensation has already gone from the taxpayer to the British fishing industry. Other hon. Members and I have been pressing for that matter to be dealt with because of the difficulties arising from the delay in arriving at a Community fishing policy.
No doubt, the Minister will receive a certain amount of money from the Community for the readjustment of the fishing industry. All too often, such compensation has been associated either with purchasing old trawlers or with compensating trawler owners in one way or another. Very little has been given to fishermen who have been in the front line, in terms of being made redundant. I agree that certain amounts have been given to share fishermen and to the industry, whether to uphold prices or to help in certain financial circumstances, but the thousands of men from the ships who have been thrown on the scrap heap have not been given a penny directly because of the casual nature of the industry.
If EEC compensation is possible, and if extra money is now to be made available for the industry, we hope that a little humanity will be shown in order to give these fishermen at least some compensation in the same way as compensation is normally given to workers in accordance with their period of service in an industry.
Over the years my hon. Friends and I have received many letters from people working in the industry who ask why they are not getting compensation when money is poured into the trawler owners' pockets. We cannot give an adequate answer. All that we can say is that we shall keep arguing the case and pressing for justice to be given to fishermen.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central referred to the problem of vessels that sink with the loss of the crew. We are concerned also for the relatives who are left. There are various charities that may assist in such circumstances, but I have in mind one case—I think that my hon. Friend had it in mind as well—the loss of the"Gaul", with everyone on board.
No one knew where the ship went down, and the courts found that negligence could not be shown. Naturally, under its insurance policy the company would receive compensation for the vessel that was lost. It simply had to show the loss. Thus, it was compensated for the loss of the ship itself, for its legal costs, and, I believe, to a certain extent, for loss of the cargo.
The relatives of the men who were lost with the vessel could not show negligence—I am not for a moment suggesting that there was negligence—so they could not establish a case for further compensation beyond the £1,000 given under the terms of insurance and six months' money. Frankly, that is quite inadequate. This industry should have a proper insurance policy under which, if men are lost—this is the most dangerous occupation of all—there will be money readily available to assist the relatives.
Perhaps I may add here a reference to the company involved—British United Trawlers. The three Hull Members of Parliament have been discussing the matter for some time. It was clear that the relatives would not be able to get any further money, and we felt that more should be done for them. We feel that special assistance should be given for the dozens of children and widows who are left, and we are grateful that the company continues to discuss with us the possibility of giving at least a little extra help to those who remain—particularly the children and widows—in difficult financial circumstances.
Those are but two examples of various aspects of the casual nature of employment in this industry. We regard it as deplorable, and since the industry is now undergoing

considerable change, with a good deal of money involved, we consider that as a priority there should be decasualisation, with the establishment of the new industry arising out of the new agreements.

Mr. James Johnson: As the House will have gathered, my two hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) and for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and I have for some years felt very keenly on the question of decasualisation for the benefit of our constituents who go to sea in ships. It is a long-standing argument, and it is not finished.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central was right to remind the House that we nearly got a settlement after the Icelandic cod war. Jack Jones for the T and GWU, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) and Lord Peart, as he now is, sat down and discussed the matter and, as my hon. Friend said, money was put on the table. Unfortunately, it did not end up in payments to fishermen, who—it has been said half a dozen times already in the debate—deserve much better compensation and far better terms of service than they have had hitherto.
It is well known on the dockside at Hull that the T and GWU desires, and has attempted to achieve for its members, those better terms of service. As the Minister knows, this advance has been opposed in the past by owners and by skippers. It has, indeed, been opposed by some of the men themselves. They have had this, so to speak, old-fashioned idea that they would keep their liberty by staying as casual labour, able to pick their ship and pick their skipper, able to stay in bed on a Monday morning, not go off with one ship to sea, but perhaps get the next one. But those are nineteenth-century attitudes, and we should regard our modern ships as floating factories.
In a factory on shore these men would have all the terms and conditions secured by, say, miners under the National Coal Board. We must try to get them for men who go to sea. When afloat they are denied the conditions provided by legislation for their fellow union members and their fellow workers ashore. On the quayside, indeed, members of the same union get far better conditions. Let us be blunt about this. They are literally—financially and physically—denied the rights enjoyed by their fellow workers. They are second-class citizens. One need only compare the terms of service and working conditions of miners. In terms of insurance for wives and dependants, for example, there is no comparison. The National Coal Board is of course a nationalised industry which sets standards.
What are we asking of the Government and of the Minister? I quote from what has become almost a Bible for us,"Fishing: the Way Forward", which states plainly, simply and factually:
A fishermens' employment scheme, as envisaged by the T and GWU, would provide for continuity of employment, a regular minimum income, sickness and injury benefit, a pension and severance payment fund.
That is hardly a revolutionary proposal. It is merely akin to what the majority of their fellow workers accept.
This scheme—and I hope that the Minister will knock this down if he thinks that it is a skittle that should not stand up—could and should be administered by a national fishing labour board. Its members could be scheduled and slotted in, to include vessel owners, union leaders and so on. It is not impossible to think in terms of local port


boards administering the scheme, as the union envisages. They would do all that is done elsewhere. They would have a register of their workers. Any vessel owner who wished to employ fishermen, not being part-owners of his vessel, would be asked to register as an employer of labour in order to employ fishermen on the official list. What is the objection to that? Why are we not getting ahead with a civilised scheme of this nature for these men who go to sea in ships in such dangerous conditions?
9 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central spoke movingly about a certain vessel and a certain set of happenings. He referred, of course, to the"Gaul". I think that in 1976 we had lost three vessels in 10 days—the"Ross Cleveland" and two others. Then we lost the"Gaul". My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East put the case very plainly, simply and factually. As Members of Parliament, as parents and as local councillors, the community of Hull has thought for years that there should have been a better settlement. As has been said, we have had petitions, and we have done what we could. As Members of Parliament, we have met, and shall continue to meet, the BUT.
I end by saying to the Minister of State—who, I hope, has been paying attention to what I have said, and who I know is a humane man—that if only he will give us not just his blessing, but any help that he possibly can in this thorny and contentious matter of settling moneys for the loss of the men in the"Gaul", he will earn himself encomiums in Hull and its neighbourhood.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: The arguments for this amendment are well known. They have been excellently and movingly put by my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) and Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) from the other side of life's great divide—the Humber.
Any Member of Parliament from a fishing port knows of the problems which the amendment is meant to tackle. He knows of the desperation of men who are thrown on the scrap-heap but who want to continue fishing. For them, fishing is a way of life, and that is no reason why their enthusiasm for it should be exploited in the way that it has been. They want to continue fishing, but are unable to do so through no fault of their own. One can imagine the desperation of such people who suddenly find that they are not entitled to compensation or redundancy payments or to any of the benefits which other sections of society receive. It seems to the fishermen that some of those benefits are extremely generous. However, nothing comes to them.
That kind of shock comes in waves to Members representing fishing ports. As each crisis hits the fishing industry, and as more vessels are laid up, another wave of people face the same problems which should have been solved five or 10 years ago. Any Member representing a fishing port knows of the sort of social security problems which fishermen run into in the course of the alternation between work and unemployment which is part of the pattern of fishing.
Sadly, this is a short-sighted industry. When things are going well, it does not want to introduce the kind of reforms that are necessary for its long-term future and which would give security to those who work in it. As a result, as soon as things start going badly, the crisis is enormously increased by the failure to prepare for it by

introducing the kind of decasualisation scheme which should have been introduced some time ago. In that sense, it is an industry which has not known its own interests. However, this House should be aware of those interests and should do something about them. Certainly Governments have a responsibility to lead the industry in the direction in which it ought to go.
It is tragic that the agreement, which was brought together in the last period of the Labour Government, has still not been implemented. In the 1980s, fishermen are still second-class citizens in many respects. Apart from the casual nature of the job, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East pointed out, the last two tranches of aid given to the industry have not trickled down to the fishermen. I hope that in the next batch of aid Ministers will ensure that in some measure at least it is operating aid which goes to those working in the industry as well as to the owners.
The amendment relates to decasualisation for people who have no security or who receive no compensation. They are totally at the mercy of the employer in a contracting, shifting industry. They are desperate to remain in the industry. We are trying to hang the responsibility for the implementation of a scheme on the Sea Fish Industry Authority. We would not be doing so had the Government acted earlier. The fact that we are doing so at this late stage shows how desperate the need is and how anxious we are to break the log-jam which seems to have built up over this apparently simple and straightforward reform which still, after all these years, has not been implemented.
This is a question of humanity, decency and obligation to those who have devoted their working lives to the industry. They deserve something better from it than what they have been getting over the last few years. If attaching the responsibility to the Sea Fish Industry Authority is the only way of achieving it, it is vital that we do so.

Mr. Wall: A strong case has been made out for some form of decasualisation. The hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) was right to point out that when the fishing industry was prosperous it did not want it. The skippers, mates and crews were earning quite good pay and were prepared to take the luck of the draw. Now, through no fault of their own, the industry—certainly the distant water industry in Hull—is in bad shape. I am particularly worried that no redundancy pay is available to these men. That is unique, for the reasons that have already been given.
Having said that, I should like to know whether any investigation has been made into the cost of introducing decasualisation in the industry. I think that the hon Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) will agree that, given the industry's state, it could not pay for that. I wonder whether he, or anyone else, has estimated the costs involved.
Although the hon. Gentleman has made out a strong case, and although his case will receive sympathy from this side of the House, I wonder whether this legislation is appropriate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) said, perhaps an employment Bill would be more appropriate. The Government should give consideration to this issue, but I doubt whether the present legislation is appropriate to deal with it.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: In Committee we had a good debate on this subject. Given its importance and the human factors that lie behind it, I am glad that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr.McNamara) has returned to it.
I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman feels that what I said in Committee about the stage of discussions was misleading. He made that remark tonight and I have been unable to check the position. I shall follow the matter up and find out what the position is. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that I did not want to mislead the Committee or the House.
I point out to the House, and particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie), that I shall draw the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Employment to this debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) rightly said, that Department has the prime responsibility for such matters.
I should like to respond sympathetically, but I return to what I said in Committee, and to what my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice has said. No matter how important the issue is—I recognise that it is very important to those who have spoken in the debate and to those who work in the industry—we must ask whether it is appropriate that this Bill should deal with the matter. More specifically, we should ask ourselves whether we should use the Sea Fish Industry Authority.

Mr. Prescott: Nobody else will do it.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: It is not a question whether no one will do it, but whether the Bill is the correct vehicle. If the will is there, we must find the correct vehicle. However, the creation of a new vehicle does not necessarily change the circumstances. This is primarly a matter for the Department of Employment.
As I pointed out in Committee and on an earlier amendment, we did not envisage that the new authority would have regulatory powers. They are implied in the operation of a decasualisation scheme. Therefore, to include that power, as the hon. Gentleman seeks, would run against one of the principles of the functions of this body.
It is important to bear in mind that the document of the Transport and General Workers' Union, entitled"Fishing: The Way Forward"—to which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) referred—recommends that a National Fishing Labour Board should be set up. It would be a specific, not a general, body. To judge from the document, this was regarded as a matter of specific responsibility for employers and employees.
9.15 pm
Although as a result of the amendment that we have agreed, the Sea Fish Industry Authority will have on it eight representatives of the industry, they will not be solely the representatives of employers and employees. Those serving on the authority will be much more widely drawn from the industry as a whole. Given these wider functions and the wider membership of the authority, I do not think that the authority or the Bill is the correct vehicle to achieve the objectives to which hon. Members have referred.
I have looked at the matter since the amendment was tabled, and since the debate on a similar amendment in

Committee, but I am sorry to have to advise the House that my view has not changed. Notwithstanding that, I shall draw the debate and its implications to the attention of Ministers in the Department of Employment. Despite the importance of the subject, I must advise my right hon. and hon. Friends not to accept the amendment.

Mr. McNamara: I shall not detain the House long, but I should reply to a number of points.
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) spoke of the problems facing the share fishermen in his constituency. I do not know whether he was present in the Chamber when my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) referred to the same problems that he faced over the treatment of share fishermen during the latest stoppage. I understand from what the Minister says that he will draw the attention of Ministers within the Department of Health and Social Security to this matter. It seems to me, as an outsider with no involvement with share fishermen, to be a strange procedure when every ship has to be taken as a test case and one member of the crew has to be treated as a test case before a satisfactory solution can be achieved. With a couple of hundred vessels involved, it will take a heck of long time for the commissioner to reach a decision and then for it to be passed down.
I am not sure how I could draw an amendment to meet the Minister's desires. The amendment I proposed in Committee was too broad because it included share fishermen. Now an amendment that excludes share fishermen still does not satisfy him. I understand the honourable Gentleman's reason. He could almost be a Social Democrat. One does not know exactly where he stands on these matters.
The hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) asked me about the cost of a redundancy scheme. Such a scheme has not been priced yet. One has not been able to lay down any criteria in view of the length of time this matter has dragged on since the last cod war. The principle behind the decasualisation scheme that was being examined was the establishment of a permanent register. With a permanent register, one would have a pool of fishermen. One would be able to examine it to decide who was taken off and who should remain on and what should be the terms of compensation offered. The essential factor was the establishment of the pool. With a register established at the start, both sides could go to the Government, to say whether it had too many or too few and that compensation was needed to settle the matter. That would follow a system of decasualisation.
My hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) and I discussed this matter a lot at the time of the cod war. We believed that, at that time, we could have achieved a viable scheme by working on the discharge books. We were sorry that people in the industry did not think the scheme would work. We believed, together with our former right hon. Friend, the Member for Grimsby, the late Anthony Crosland, that we had worked out a specific proposal.
The Minister said that this Bill was not a suitable vehicle. It is not a question whether it is a suitable vehicle; it is a question of the political will. If there is political will on behalf of a Conservative Government or a Labour Government, a lift can be hitched. This is a vehicle on


which we could easily hitch a lift. We would be happy not to have a national fishing body. We would be happy to have the new authority if it were to introduce decasualisation. We are not tied to any specific form of management, although we want employees and employers to be represented. We are not wedded to any particular title—
What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.
We want a scheme of decasualisation. If the Government have the political will to introduce such a scheme, that could be done.
The Minister felt that in an earlier speech I was accusing him of misleading the Committee. He took mild exception to that. If I have accused him of misleading the Committee—I shall read the words that I used—I immediately withdraw the accusation. I merely suggest that a scheme was agreed by both sides. It was necessary only for the Government to introduce it. Problems suddenly arose that had not been envisaged. It was suggested that alterations might need to be made.
The scheme appeared immediately after the general election, at a time when there was no great encouragement to introduce decasualisation. The Government did not push the scheme. They have not given it a degree of priority and they have not given reasons for not seeking to implement it.
Speeches have been made across the great divide. Fortunately, the divide will soon be bridged and we shall be able to offer refuge to those from Grimsby at Hull. My hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) might be the first refugee.
The fishing industry is basically the only industry in Britain that remains to be decasualised. The work force is dwindling and decasualisation is merely a matter of will and purposefulness. Given the demoralised state of the industry, decasualisation could come from the House with all-party support, even from this Government.
I urge the Minister and his right hon. and hon. Friends to reconsider their position between the ringing of the Division bells and the closing of the doors and to give us a majority.

Question put, That the amendment be made:

The House divided: Ayes 91, Noes 148.

Division No. 95]
[9.25 pm


AYES


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Eadie, Alex


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Eastham, Ken


Brown, Hugh D.(Provan)
Ellis, R. (NED'bysh're)


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n&amp;P)
Evans, John (Newton)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Ewing, Harry


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Fletcher, Ted(Darlington)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Foster, Derek


Coleman, Donald
George, Bruce


Concannon, Rt HonJ, D.
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Cowans, Harry
Ginsburg, David


Crowther, J. S.
Grant, George(Morpeth)


Cryer, Bob
Hardy, Peter


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Dalyell, Tam
Haynes, Frank


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Hogg, N. (EDunb't'nshire)


Deakins, Eric
Home Robertson, John


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Homewood, William


Dempsey, James
Hooley, Frank


Dewar, Donald
Hughes, Mark(Durham)


Dixon, Donald
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Dobson, Frank
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Dormand, Jack
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Kilfedder, James A.



Leighton, Ronald
Park, George


Lestor, Miss Joan
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Lewis, Arthur (N'hamNW)
Prescott, John


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Roberts, Albert(Normanton)


Lyons, Edward(Bradf'dW)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


McCartney, Hugh
Silkin, Rt Hon J.(Deptford,)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Silverman, Julius


McElhone, Frank
Skinner, Dennis


McKay, Allen(Penistone)
Spearing, Nigel


McKelvey, William
Spriggs, Leslie


McNamara, Kevin
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


McWilliam, John
Strang, Gavin


Marks, Kenneth
Tinn, James


Marshall, D(G'gowS'ton)
Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Welsh, Michael


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
White, Frank R.


Maxton, John
Whitlock, William


Maynard, Miss Joan
Wigley, Dafydd


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Woolmer, Kenneth


Miller, Dr M.S. (E Kilbride)



Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Tellers for the Ayes:


O'Neill, Martin
Mr. George Morton and


Palmer, Arthur
Mr. Austin Mitchell


NOES


Alexander, Richard
Gray, Hamish


Alton, David
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)


Ancram, Michael
Grist, Ian


Arnold, Tom
Grylls, Michael


Aspinwall, Jack
Gummer, John Selwyn


Atkins, Robert(Preston N)
Haselhurst, Alan


Banks, Robert
Hawksley, Warren


Beith, A.J.
Heddle, John


Benyon, Thomas(A'don)
Hogg, Hon Douglas(Gr'th'm)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Holland, Philip(Carlton)


Best, Keith
Hordern, Peter


Bevan, DavidGilroy
Howell, Ralph(N Norfolk)


Biggs-Davison, John
Howells, Geraint


Blackburn, John
Hurd, Hon Douglas


Braine, Sir Bernard
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Bright, Graham
Kimball, Marcus


Brinton, Tim
Lang, Ian


Brotherton, Michael
Lawrence, Ivan


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp;Sc'n)
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Bruce-Gardyne, John
LeMarchant, Spencer


Bryan, Sir Paul
Lloyd, Peter(Fareham)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Luce, Richard


Buck, Antony
Lyell, Nicholas


Bulmer, Esmond
MacGregor, John


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)
McNair-Wilson, M'('bury)


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
McQuarrie, Albert


Chapman, Sydney
Major, john


Churchill,W.S.
Mates, Michael


Clark, Hon A.(Plym'th, S'n)
Mather, Carol


Clark, Sir W.(Croydon S)
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Clarke, Kenneth(Rushcliffe)
Mawby, Ray


Colvin, Michael
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Cope, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Cormack, Patrick
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Corrie, John
Miller, Hal(B'grove)


Crouch, David
Mills, lain(Meriden)


Dorrell, Stephen
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Douglas-Hamilton,Lord J.
Moate, Roger


Dover, Denshore
Molyneaux, James


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Morgan, Geraint


Dykes, Hugh
Murphy, Christopher


Elliott, Sir William
Myles, David


Faith, MrsSheila
Neale, Gerrard


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Needham, Richard


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'ghN)
Nelson, Anthony


Fookes, Miss Janet
Neubert, Michael


Forman, Nigel
Newton, Tony


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Onslow, Cranley


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Osbon, john


Goodlad, Alastair
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Gorst, John
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)


Gow, Ian
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Gower, SirRaymond
Pawsey, James


Grant, Anthony(Harrow C)
Penhaligon, David






Pollock, Alexander
Tebbit, Norman


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Temple-Morris, Peter


Proctor, K. Harvey
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Renton, Tim
Thornton, Malcolm


Rhodes James, Robert
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Wall, Patrick


Rossi, Hugh
Waller, Gary


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Ward, John


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Warren, Kenneth


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
 Watson, John


Skeet, T. H. H.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Speller, Tony
Wells, Bowen


Spence, John
Wheeler, John


Spicer, Michael (SWorcs)
Wickenden, Keith


Sproat, lain
Winterton, Nicholas


Squire, Robin
Wolfson, Mark


Stainton, Keith
Younger, Rt Hon George 

Stanbrook, lvor



Stevens, Martin
Tellers for the Noes: 

Stradling Thomas, J.
Mr. Peter Brooke and


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Mr. Donald Thompson.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 5

RECORDS FOR LEVY PURPOSES

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 5, line 9 after 'records', insert
'and to furnish to the Authority such information'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this we may take Government amendment No. 10.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The amendment provides a power under which persons liable to pay the authority's levy can be required to send to the authority information about their levy liability. Under the clause as drafted, persons can be required to keep levy records, but in order to assess their liability for levy the authority must send its officers to the premises in which records are kept.
That would clearly be a large task, and it would be expensive for the authority to employ appropriate numbers of inspectors. Of course, the cost would have to be met out of the levy. To simplify the bureaucracy that would be involved and to minimise the cost, amendment No. 9 gives power to require information about the levy to be sent to the authority. Amendment No. 10 makes it an offence to furnish false information in so doing.
The White Fish Authority has a slightly different power, in that it can require information to be sent to it, and failure to supply that information when requested can lead to punishment. All that we are doing here is giving the new authority the same powers as the White Fish Authority. At the same time, we hope to reduce bureaucracy and expense. I hope that the amendment will commend itself to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 10, in page 5, line 29, after 'record', insert 'or furnishes any information'.—[Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

Clause 6

BORROWING POWERS

Amendments made: No. 11, in page 5, line 41, after 'of, insert 'the aggregate of (a)'.

No. 12, in page 5, line 42, after 'section', insert

'and

(b) sums borrowed by another person and guaranteed by the Authority under section 3(1)(f) above'.—[Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

Clause 20

PROHIBITION OF TRANS-SHIPMENT OF SEA FISH

Amendment made: No. 15, in page 15, line 29, leave out from 'section 6' to the end of line 30 and insert
'for the words"under this section" in the second place where they occur there shall be substituted the words"under this subsection", and after that subsection there shall be inserted—
(5A) If any sea fish are—

(a) trans-shipped into a vessel in contravention of an order under this section; or
(b) trans-shipped from a vessel in contravention of such an order, the master, the owner and the charterer (if any) of the vessel shall each be guilty of an offence under this subsection.".'.—[Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

Clause 21

PENALTIES FOR OFFENCES

Amendments made: No. 16, in page 16, line 38, leave out 'or 5(1)' and insert:
', 4A(3), 5(1) or 6(5A)(a)'.

No. 17, in page 16, line 42, after '(9A)', insert ', 4A(6)'.

No. 18, in page 17, line 2, leave out '6' and insert', 4A(7)or(8), 6(5) or (5A)(b)'.

No. 19, in page 17, line 8, after '(9A)', insert', 4A(3) and (6)'.

No. 20, in page 17, line 9, after '6', insert '(5) and (5A)(b)'.

No. 21, in page 17, line 18, after '(9A)', insert 'or 4A(3) or (6)'.

No. 22, in page 17, line 29, after '6', insert '(5) or (5A)(b)'.

No. 23, in page 17, line 36, after '(9A)', insert', 4A(3) or (6)'.—[Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

Clause 22

ENFORCEMENT OF ACT OF 1967

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 18, line 33, leave out from beginning to 'search' in line 34 and insert—
(bb) take copies of any such document;
and, is he has reason to suspect that an offence under this Act has been committed, he may also—'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take Government amendment No. 25.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The amendment relates to an important matter. In Committee my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) and Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) pressed me regarding the powers that British sea fishery officers would have to search premises. They felt that the powers were too wide and could encroach upon the liberty of the individual. I undertook at that time to see whether a way could be found to limit the powers. This amendment is by way of response to the very reasonable and fair point that my hon. Friends made in Committee.
It was apparent in Committee that the real concern was about the power to search premises, as distinct from the power to make routine inspections. I make that distinction.


I have considered the matter carefully, and I feel that some limitation on the absolute power to search premises is desirable. As a result, the purpose of the amendment is to limit that power to those occasions when a British sea fishery officer has reason to suspect that an offence has been committed.
I appreciate that my two hon. Friends were seeking to protect the rights of the individual. I am equally concerned in the amendment to protect those rights. But it should be remembered that we have a responsibility as well for the conservation of fish stocks. After all, the future livelihood of fishermen depends on an effective conservation of fish stocks and on how effective we are in ensuring that catch quotas are observed. The effectiveness of catch quotas and any accompanying quota management measures must entail a lot of checking of documentary evidence. Thus, in considering the powers that were needed to ensure effective levels of enforcement, I have had to strike a balance between the need to protect the rights of the individual and the need to protect the future fishing opportunities for United Kingdom fishermen.
I believe that we have struck the proper balance in the amendment I appreciate that my hon. Friends would have liked me to go further, but I ask them to bear in mind the other considerations that are involved, and I hope that they will consider that we have struck the correct balance.

Mr. Donald Stewart: A small point arises in connection with these excellent amendments, which I shall support. It concerns the general application of the powers. I take the point that was raised about individual freedom, and so on. The general manager of the Stornoway Pier and Harbour Commission has asked me to discover whether the commission's premises are covered by
any premises (other than a dwelling house)".
Will the Minister say whether harbour authorities and similar undertakings would be liable to searches of this kind?

Mr. Sproat: I rise to thank my hon. Friend the Minister of State for responding in this way to the arguments that we advanced in Committee. It is certainly true that without these amendments the powers would be extremely wide. A sea fisheries officer could apparently enter premises covered by the clause and could compel not only the master of the business, but his wife, his child and anyone else to do what that officer wished. It is good that the powers have been clarified and narrowed in this way, so that it is now a question only of the officer's seeing documents and copying them, if necessary.
My hon. Friend has not gone as far down the road as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) and I would wish, but we believe that half a loaf is better than no bread. We should still like search warrants that are obtained for the purposes of this clause to be signed by justices of the peace. Nevertheless, we appreciate that my hon. Friend has at least met us half way, and if experience shows that these powers are being abused no doubt our constituents will contact us quickly and we shall look at the matter again. In the meantime I thank my hon. Friend the Minister of State and express my support for the amendment.

Mr. McQuarrie: I associate myself with the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat). The point raised by the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) was the very point that

worried us—the fact that sea fisheries officers would have the right to enter any premises other than a dwelling house. We saw that as an erosion of freedom for a business person whose premises would be entered as of right by a sea fisheries officer.
In Committee the Minister was kind enough to indicate that the reason for the clause and for clause 23, and the reason he has now altered paragraphs (c) and (d), is that if there were to be routine inspections they could be carried out as normal, but if it were suspected that a fishing business were acting contrary to the Act the officers would be able to enter the premises and obtain the necessary information.
I am pleased with the Minister's careful drafting in paragraphs (c) and (d) because by his draftsmanship he has answered half our fears. He has removed the problems created by paragraphs (a) and (b).
May I urge my hon. Friend carefully to monitor these provisions once the Bill becomes law so that if there is any suggestion of abuse of those powers under paragraphs (a) and (b) he will look at the matter again? I thank him for reconsidering the matter and bringing forward the amendments, which remove most of the fears that my hon. Friend and I had expressed.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful for the welcome that the amendments have received. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) that the powers and the way in which they are exercised will be monitored in the normal course of events. If there are any abuses we shall seek to deal with them.
The right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) asked whether the harbour offices at Stornoway would be covered by this provision. I refer him to clause 22 where the proposed new subsection (2A) says:
Any such officer may—
(a) enter at any reasonable time any premises (other than a dwelling-house) used for carrying on any business in connection with the operation of fishing boats or activities connected therewith or ancillary' thereto or with the treatment, storage or sale of sea fish;
The premises that can be entered are defined in that subsection.
9.45 pm
I have been in the harbour office at Stornoway on occasions, perhaps even with the right hon. Gentleman. I cannot say whether any of the activities described are carried out at that office. If they are, the office will be covered by the legislation. I shall look more closely at the matter and let him know whether the office will be covered.
A limitation is provided, which means that each case must be judged on its merits. If any of those activities take place at certain premises, the power to enter applies. I hope that that provides some clarification for the right hon. Gentleman.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 25, in page 18, line 39, leave out from beginning to 'seize' in line 41.

No. 26, in page 19, line 14, after 'on', insert
'and the equipment of, the vessel'.—[Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

Clause 23

BRITISH SEA-FISHERY OFFICERS

Amendments made: No. 27, in page 21, line 11, leave out second 'or'.

No. 27A, in page 21, line 12, after '1967', insert
'or section (Enforcement of provisions as to trans-shipment) of the Fisheries Act 1981'.

No. 28, in page 21, line 23, at end add—
'(6) After section 10(2) of the said Act of 1968 there is inserted the following—
(2A) Any person who on any vessel within British fishery limits—

(a)fails without reasonable excuse to comply with any requirement imposed or to answer any question asked, by a British sea-fishery officer under section (Enforcement of provisions as to trans-shipment) of the Fisheries Act 1981;
(b)prevents, or attempts to prevent, any other person complying with any such requirement or answering any such question; or
(c)assaults any such officer while exercising any of the powers conferred on him by that section or wilfully obstructs any such officer in the exercise of any of those powers;

shall be guilty of an offence.'".—[Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

Clause 24

JURISDICTION

Amendments made: No. 29, in page 21, line 26, at end insert '4A'.—[Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

Clause 28

EXEMPTION FROM CONSERVATION LEGISLATION

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 31, in page 24, line 2, leave out from beginning to 'by' in line 4 and insert
'provision of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 mentioned in column 1 of Part I Schedule 4 to this Act by reason of any act specified in relation to that provision in column 2 of that Part which is done'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government amendment No. 37.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: This is a complicated matter, and it may be helpful if I explain it briefly to the House.
Clause 28(1) exempts fish fanners from certain provisions of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975, which are designed to protect wild stocks of salmon, trout and freshwater fish. The provisions currently affect all fish farms. We discussed the matter in Committee, and there was general agreement that it was time to release fish farmers from unnecessary restriction. The point was raised in consultation before the Bill was introduced, and we sought to include a provision in it.
The amendments to clause 28 and schedule 4 limit the scope of the exemption as appropriate to fish produced by fish farming, and to waters used exclusively for farming. As I said in Committee, we received representations to the effect that clause 28(1), as drafted, could give rise to difficulties. I was persuaded by those representations. As those who served on the Committee know, I promised to bring forward a suitable amendment.
I received representations on two specific points—first, that the position of fishing with rod and line was not clear, and, secondly, that the unacceptable netting of wild stocks of fish from rivers for fish fanning purposes should be

exempted. It was not our intention that either of those practices should be exempted. The amendments make it clear that fishing with rod and line is not exempted, and that the exemptions relating to nets and the netting of fish are restricted only to the taking of farmed fish and the use of nets in waters used exclusively for fish farming.
I hope that the amendments meet the concern that has been expressed.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 33

FISHERIES OFFENCES ON RIVER TWEED

Mr. A. J. Beith: I beg to move amendment No. 32, in page 27, line 1, leave out clause 33.
It must be unusual for an hon. Member to find in a Bill a clause which relates exclusively and wholly to his constituency. I am almost tempted to inquire whether this might be a hybrid Bill on that account and thus take us back into the area in which we were with the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill.
One of the distinctive features of this clause is that it brings a piece of Scottish law into England. There are precedents for that and I shall refer to them in a moment. I am sure that it is something that appeals greatly to the leader of the Scottish National Party, the right hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart). It is not the sort of thing we normally expect from the Government, as I shall argue in a moment, although there is reasonable precedent for some of the things that they are trying to do. What is perhaps most puzzling and surprising is that it has nothing to do with the White Fish Authority, with sea fisheries or with fish farming. Therefore, everybody was slightly surprised to find it in this Bill at this stage.
When I consulted the court officials and solicitors in Berwick, they were horrified to find that this piece of important legislation affecting them might have escaped their notice entirely, because at least one of them admitted frankly to me that he would never have dreamt of looking at a Bill which changes the constitution of the White Fish Authority for the latest definition of the law on the river fishery of salmon in the Tweed. That is what this clause is about. It is perhaps a warning that we should be careful about how we carry out legislative work of this kind in order to ensure that those involved can check the legislation.
The Minister has just referred to representations that he received on a previous clause. He has very properly responded to the representations and as a consequence has modified what could have been a technical difficulty. That is right and it is a natural process of government. It is very hard to do that if a clause affecting a wholly different area is introduced not on Second Reading but at Committee stage, especially when it arises very late in the Committee stage and is picked up only if hon. Members are particularly zealous to watch for things of this kind. Therefore, I am bound to ask why the clause was not in the Bill on Second Reading. If the Government recognised the need for it, they could surely have included it in the Bill on Second Reading.
They did not see fit to consult anybody about it. The Secretary of State, who is in his place, defended his decision on the ground that he was correcting an oversight.


The fact that a new clause corrects an oversight is no excuse for not consulting anybody about it, otherwise one runs the risk of compounding the oversight with even more oversights and making the matter even worse than it was to start with. I hope that he will not erect that into a principle of Scottish Office practice.
That reminds me that it is the Scottish Office which deals with the bit of England with which we are concerned. When I table questions hoping for a reply from the always cheerful hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), I find that they are all transferred to the Secretary of State for Scotland.
I have said that the Minister said that he did not need to consult anybody because this clause merely corrected an oversight. He cannot get away with that. It was not an oversight at all. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) pointed out on Second Reading of the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Bill in 1975 that it applied only to the Scottish and not to the English parts of the Tweed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) dealt with it in detail in the Committee stage of that Bill.
The Minister, who was, I think, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown), defended in some detail the fact that the Government had made the decision not to extend the provisions of that Bill to the English part of the Tweed. At that stage I made inquiries of the Government and of the Clerks of the House because I was concerned that penalties could be applied to citizens of England by means of a Scottish Bill which was dealt with in this House entirely through Scottish procedures—the Scottish Grand Committee for Second Reading and the Scottish Standing Committee for the Committee stage. Quite rightly, no attempt was made to extend to England that Scottish Bill which was going through exclusively Scottish procedures. It would have been foreign to the procedures of the House had that been done.
The then Government took the view that uniformity was not necessary along the Tweed and that the progress of the Bill would be impaired if they had to use United Kingdom procedures and thereby widen its scope. It could not be claimed to have been an oversight. It may have been a misjudgment; it was not a mistake. Everybody knew what was happening and realised what the consequences might be. Indeed, they were fully pointed out by several Liberal members at that time.
The clause involves the practice of treating a piece of England for salmon fisheries purposes as if it were in Scotland. That is not new. It has been done in River Tweed legislation over many years. The Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1976 could be said to be a departure from the practice which had gone before in that it applied penalties exclusively on the Scottish side and left the English law unchanged with different penalties and slight differences in the definition of offences. It is not unreasonable that the Government should now propose to change that situation by putting the English side of the Tweed on the same basis as the Scottish side.
When I discovered that that was the Government's intention, I had to try to obtain information on how they intended to draft the clause and its implications. That had to be done hastily by written questions in four or live days. I reiterate that is not a helpful way to introduce complicated legislation. The Minister, whilst recognising that his staff would have to move fast to answer some of those questions, must also have recognised that fishing

was a sensative issue and that salmon fishing was a very sensitive issue. The risk of the slightest error giving rise to enormous complications must be avoided in legislating in this area. I had many queries about it which I had to pursue by means of written questions. It was important to establish that, for example, it did not affect drift net fishing beyond the mouth of the Tweed and that it did not create new offences of a wholly different kind. We certainly ought not to take the risk of an oversight the other way. The effect of the clause as it now appears will be to increase fines for offences in the English parts of the Tweed. However, it will also remove custodial sentences from punishments. There will no longer be the sanction of a person being sent to prison for a second offence in certain categories as was the position previously. This may be the Scottish Office's contribution to the Home Secretary's campaign to reduce the prison population. Perhaps I should not comment on that. However, that is a feature of the legislation to be noted. It removes the risk of a custodial sentence for a second offence of poaching and the option of trial in the Crown court except on appeal.
It is sensible that the laws regulating salmon fishing on the Tweed should be uniform along the whole length of the river which is in part in Scotland and in part in England and represents the boundary between England and Scotland. It is obvious that it is one river. Therefore, we should organise the regulation of fisheries in it on the basis of a single corpus of law. I do not object to that principle. However, the Government must recognise that hon. Members have a duty to look after their constituents' interests. The process of legislation ought to ensure that that can be done in a reasonable way and not rushed, as. I feared.
That is why I tabled this probing amendment. I shall not seek to prevent the retention of the clause in the Bill.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful for the spirit in which the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) moved the amendment. I should like to make it clear right away, as I think he will accept, that there was. no intention of being discourteous to him by not consulting him and others in his constituency about this matter. If the hon. Gentleman has been inconvenienced in any way I apologise to him and, through him, to any of his constituents who might have felt that we were jumping matters on this issue.
I find myself in a slightly invidious position as a Member representing a Scottish constituency on the north side of the Tweed and a Minister in a United Kingdom Department supporting a clause that extends Scottish legislation to the south bank of the Tweed.
The notes which have been drafted for me to use in answering the amendments are interesting. I am advised to advise the House that this is not a significant Scottish encroachment. That is a rather felicitous way of putting it. Therefore, I hope that the House will not feel that I am encroaching on England by having had to move this provision in Committee, or by having to defend it now on the Floor of the House.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is right in saying that no indication of this provision was given on Second Reading.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,

That, at this day's sitting, the Fisheries Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Cope.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The reason why there was no indication was that it was only as a result of a relatively recent decision by the Berwich magistrates' court that the anomaly regarding the 1976 Act was brought to our attention. There were specific representations about that matter, some of which we did not receive until after the Bill was drafted, and some of them not until after the Second Reading. Given the fact that a Fisheries Bill is going through the House and that there is a gloriously long title anyway, covering everything from sea fish authorities to regulations, to fish farming, to cetaceans and all sorts of other interesting things, this is obviously a sensible way to try to correct the matter.
Like the hon. Member for Berwich-upon-Tweed, I can only guess at the intentions of those who drafted the legislation and put the legislation through the House in 1976. As a Minister in a successor Government, I have no means of finding out what those intentions were. I can only guess, as the hon. Member did, that in legislative terms it was intended to keep the River Tweed as a single entity on both banks, because the River Tweed has been treated as one river system coming under Scottish legislation from as long ago as 1868 and 1902, and more recently in 1951.

In the 1976 Act the penalties applying to the south bank of the Tweed appear to have been overlooked when that legislation was drafted. The hon. Member saved me having to go through my brief tonight by answering and ackowledging the reasons.

Mr Beith: We should place on record the fact that the Act of 1976 could not have extended penalties to any part of England unless it had been put through different procedures. For the protection of my constituents, we should make it clear that someone did not forget to include those provisions but that it was recognised that to extend the Act to England would involve different procedures. Those procedures were not used.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I note the hon. Member's point. However, I do not intend to go into the merits of that matter. I explained it in Committee and the hon. Member acknowledged the reasons why that had taken place, and believed that they were sensible and right.
I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if he has been inconvenienced by the way in which the matter has been handled. I thank him for the spirit in which he moved his amendment, in anticipation that he will ask leave to withdraw it.

Mr. Beith: I thank the Minister for his courteous reply. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 38

FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

Amendments made; No. 33, in page 28, line 15, leave out 'making loans to the Authority' and insert
providing financial assistance to the Authority (by way of loan, grant or guarantee)'.

No. 34, in page 28, leave out lines 23 to 25 and insert 'under this Act'.—[Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

Schedule 3

WHITE FISH AUTHORITY AND HERRING INDUSTRY BOARD: TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 36, in page 34, line 48, at end insert—

'Other statutory functions

.—(1) The functions of the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board under—


(a)section 31(12) of the Harbours Act 1964 (consultation on objection to ship, passenger and goods dues); and
(b)rule 124 of the Fishing Vessels (Safety Provisions) Rules 1975 (appointment of inspectors and surveyors),

are transferred to the Authority, and those enactments are amended as follows.

(2) In section 31(12)—


(a)for"the White Fish Authority or the Herring Industry Board" there is substituted"the Sea Fish Authority"; and
(b)for"the Authority or as the case may be the Board" there is substituted"the Authority".

In rule 124—


(a)for"the Sea Fish Industry Act 1970" there is substituated"the Fisheries Act 1981"; and
(b)for"the White Fish Authority or the Herring Industry Board" in the first place where those words occur, there is substituted"the Sea Fish Industry Authority" and in the second place where they occur, there is substituted"or the Sea Fish Industry Authority'".

(4) Anything which when this paragraph comes into force is in process of being done under section 31(12) by or in relation to the White Fish Authority or the Herring Industry Board may be continued by or in relation to the Authority; and any appointment under rule 124 made by either of those bodies before this paragraph comes into force shall have effect as if made by the Authority so far as is necessary for continuing its effect.'.

This is one of those horribly lengthy amendments which, were the hour not fairly late, might cause hon. Members to wonder what was meant and press for

'Provision of 1975 Act

Section 2(2) (talking etc. of unclean or immature fish).

Section 3(1) (use of seine or draft nets).

Section 3(2) and (4) (minimum mesh of nets).

Section 5(1) (use of explosives, etc.)

Section 5(4) (possession of equipment for purpose of contravening section 5(1)).

Section I9(2)(a), (4)(a), (6) and (7) (close seasons and close times for various fish).

Section 22(1) (sale etc. of fish at certain times of year).

Section 23(1) (export of fish at certain times of year).

Section 27(a) (unlicensed fishing).

Section 27(b) {possession of equipment with intent to use it for unlicensed fishing).

explanations. In fact, the purpose is fairly simple—to transfer to the new Sea Fish Industry Authority two functions currently exercised by the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board.

The first function arises under the Harbours Act 1964. When objections are raised to the level of harbour charges, there is a statutory procedure for considering them. Among the relevant provisions is a requirement that if the harbour charge under consideration is of concern to the WFA or the HIB, the authority or the board should be consulted before a decison is taken on the charge. It seems appropriate that the new authority should take on the same role.

The second function covered in the amendment arises in this way. At present, the staff of the White Fish Authority or the Herring Industry Board carry out surveys for the Department of Trade. This function is of benefit to the industry, since the surveys are carried out in the course of the authority's or board's inspection work on grant and loan projects. I see the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) smiling. He referred to this point earlier.

The carrying out of this function by inspectors of the HIB and the WFA has meant that the number of inspectors could be kept to a minimum. Thus, financial savings are passed on to the fishermen by means of a reduction in fees for surveys carried out by staff of the authority or the board.

This is obviously a sensible practice, and the amendment will enable the new authority to take it on. The point was overlooked at earlier stages. I hope that, with that brief explanation, the House will accept the amendment.

Mr. McNamara: I have but one observation to make. The Minister has now confirmed the point that we made earlier, that there were other safety matters which were being undertaken, and there was therefore no reason why our amendment should not be accepted.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 4

EXEMPTIONS FOR FISH FARMING

Amendment made: No. 37, in page 35, leave out lines 5 to 15 and insert—

Exempted acts

Taking, killing or injuring or attempting to take, kill or injure or buying, selling or exposing for sale, or having in possession fish produced by fish farming.

Shooting or working a seine or draft net in waters used exclusively for fish farming.

Taking or attempting to take fish produced by fish farming.

Using an electrical device in waters used exclusively for fish farming.

Possession of an electrical device for the purpose of using it in waters used exclusively for fish farming.

Fishing for, taking or killing or attempting to take or kill (otherwise than by a rod and line) fish produced by fish farming.

Buying, selling, exposing for sale or having in possession for sale fish produced by fish farming.

Exporting or entering for export fish produced by fish farming.

Fishing for or taking (otherwise than by a rod and line) fish produced by fish farming.

Possession of an instrument (other than a rod and line) with intent to use it for fishing tor or taking fish produced by fish farming.

Provision of 1975 Act

section 28(7) (infringement of byelaws), so far as relating to any byelaw made for a purpose mentioned in paragraphs 21, 23, 24, 25, 26 or 28 of Schedule 3.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I know that the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) wishes to speak on Third Reading, but I should like to say a few words at this stage. I believe that by setting up the new Sea Fish Industry Authority, with the service which it can give to the industry, and by bringing to an end the uncertainty which has existed over the future of the two authorities which it will replace, we shall help to bring substantial benefit to the industry.
I take this opportunity to put on record again my thanks to those who have served on the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board for the good service which they and their staff have given over the years. I pay tribute also to the patience which they have exercised until Parliament eventually came to a decision to unite the work of the two bodies in one authority. Given the record of the two original bodies, I am certain that the new authority, which I certainly wish well, will start from a firm and excellent base and from that base should be able to continue to give good service to the industry.
I come now to one or two specific provisions in the Bill which are of particular significance. The first relates to control and conservation, penalties and enforcement. The powers which we are taking in relation to fishing vessels of other countries and the greater speed with which we ought to be able to act under the provisions of the Bill will, I believe, be of great importance, since conservation measures, quotas and everything else are worth nothing unless we can apply them effectively and swiftly.
The other matter is fish farming. It has been described as an infant industry. A number of minor steps have been taken in the past to assist it in legislation, but I think that this is the first time that in a Bill of this kind a number of provisions have been brought together to help fish farming. I hope that this will be the start of a greater appreciation of the part that the fish farming industry can play in our economy.
With those few words, I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Roy Mason: As we move to the Third Reading of the Bill, I, too, pay tribute to the services rendered by the Herring Industry Board and the White Fish Authority. We paid tribute to them on Second Reading and we echo those tributes as we reach the final stages of the Bill.
The Sea Fish Industry Authority is now being established, but I must tell the Minister that it is still not in the form that the Opposition would have wished. We still believe that our proposal for a smaller, independent authority, backed up by an expert consultative body, would have been better. The new authority now being forced upon the House will have a mixture of independent members and representatives from the fishing industry. The Minister assured us that he has found confidence in the industry on this particular form and make-up. At this stage, we shall have to accept that from him.

Exempted acts

Any act committed—


(a)in waters used exclusively for fish farming; and
(b)in the case of a bylaw made for the purpose mentioned in paragraph 21 or 25 of Schedule 3, otherwise than with a rod and line.'.—[Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

On consultations with a wide range of sectional interests, who collectively will have a great deal to say about promoting the efficiency of the industry, the Minister has so far been unable to indicate a consultative body of any kind. Even at this late stage, therefore, we still have no knowledge of the make-up of the authority or of any consultative system. If the Minister intends to make a winding-up speech on Third Reading it would be most helpful if he could enlighten us a little more on that.

I believe that the Bill has been much improved in Committee, especially through the amendments moved by my hon. Friends but also because throughout the Committee stage the Minister was listening to the many suggestions that were made. On Report a number of valuable amendments were therefore made, which the House has welcomed today. The list includes parliamentary accountability on directives and in examination of the authority's borrowings, the tightening of the law on the transhipments of fish, Klondiking operations and the licensing of vessels—a whole batch of new amendments that have undoubtedly improved the Bill. We hope that the transhipment loopholes have now been effectively blocked.

Having perused the names of the members of the Committee, and having read the report of all of its sittings, it is clear to me that it was an effective Committee stage. If we have had an effective Report stage, it has been because the Committee was composed of very knowledgeable Members of the House.

The Bill recognises that the fishing industry has changed considerably in recent years. Our deep-sea fleet has been drastically reduced. Our inshore and middle-distance fleets have grown in numbers, and there has been a geographical switch in operational strength, so that at least 50 per cent. of the United Kingdom fishing fleets now operate from Scottish ports.

Within that growth of smaller vessels, however, fear is developing in the industry that foreign vessels are increasingly being registered under the British flag—that there are flags of convenience within the British shipping fleets. According to reports, Spaniards and Scandinavians are already moving in. A considerable number of foreign vessels have registered in our ports. We ought to know from the Minister when he replies to what extent that is really happening. How many of those ships have registered in our ports in order conveniently to take advantage of our fishing limits, our sharing quotas and, above all, of Government loans and grants to the industry? I know that Government action is required to stop this, but I should like to know what powers the newly established Sea Fish Industry Authority will have to deal with matters of that kind.

I hope that the Minister will not shackle the new authority. In Committee and on Report my hon. Friends pressed the need for some degree of permanence and security for the men in the fishing industry. I hope that the Minister will encourage the authority in that spirit of change and try to increase the betterment of the whole industry.

While we recognise that on training and safety the Sea Fisheries Training Council, the Board of Trade and the Health and Safety Executive are primarily involved, we would wish the authority to be encouraged to support speedier changes for the betterment of the whole industry. By that we draw attention to the share fishermen and the inshore fleets, which, unlike the deep—sea trawling fleet, are not so well organised. Their job condition as a whole must be much progressed in order to match normal conditions established by other major industries.

I turn to clause 13, in part II. If, flowing from a common fisheries policy deal, money is to be made available from the Common Market and matched by Government grants, I hope that there will be cash for fishermen who have already suffered, and may suffer further as a result of the deal. I hope that some thought is already being given to helping some of our fishing communities as a possible result of a CFP deal.

I also hope that the new authority will be called upon to examine unfair practices that operate against United Kingdom fishermen. I hope that there will be regular monitoring, so that the Minister can be kept informed, with evidence, in order to alert the Commission and the Council of Fisheries Ministers.

The timing of the Bill is most appropriate in anticipation of the CFP deal. Part II could quickly be brought into use if the new fisheries policy necessitates restructuring the United Kingdom fishing fleets with the aid of Common Market cash. The Minister knows the pitfalls, and so do we. He must not sell sections of our fleet for the short-term attraction of a cash deal. What is on offer by way of scrapping grants, laying-up premiums and the building of new vessels must be agreed by the industry as a whole. We recognise that that is difficult, but that is the goal.

In order to give the authority a good start and a basis for its work in the future, it would be laudable if, next week, at the meeting of the Fisheries Council, we could obtain agreement on our basic aims. The Bill helps us towards our first objectve of conservation—to conserve fish stocks effectively. Secondly, in alliance with the 40 EEC inspectors or enforcement officers agreed in the CFP talks, the Bill establishes our sea fishery officers, another useful addition in preparation for a common fisheries policy.

The Bill contains powers relating to the allocation of finance to the industry. We are therefore ready to take advantage of Common Market grants and loans in the wake of any agreement.

We have made some progress on conservation and in the gradual build-up of some controls, and I hope that as the Bill proceeds to enactment we shall see Common Market agreement that will give us satisfaction on total allowable catches, controls over access in our 12-mile coastal belt, and the dominant preference that we seek up to 50 miles.

If in his negotiations the Minister can obtain satisfaction for the whole industry, the Bill will prove invaluable to the United Kingdom fishing industry. We all fully appreciate the difficulties and the strong nationalistic views that still prevail in the fisheries talks, but if the Minister can maintain the support of Parliament and the various sections of the industry, and press on to their satisfaction, it may well be that the fishermen's

frustration, anger and long-standing patience will not have been in vain. I have pleasure in supporting the Third Reading.

Mr. Sproat: I am sure that the whole House will echo the words of the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) about what we hope will come out of the common fisheries policy. As someone who has expressed during the Bill's stages some doubts and scepticism about certain parts of the new Sea Fish Industry Authority, I welcome the fact that it will be set up.
The fishing industry desperately needs a period of stability, confidence and unity of aim. The new authority, with its eight members from the industry, can contribute greatly to those three ends. I wish the new authority well.

Mr. McNamara: The Bill will do a great deal to organise the industry and to establish it on a sound footing. However, I am not as optimistic as some hon. Members about what will emerge from the common fisheries policy—should such a policy come about. Some of the powers that will allow us to take advantage of any benefits that may come from the policy will hang in limbo until after the French elections, if not longer.
In terms of the Bill's social content, a marvellous opportunity has been lost. The authority will not merely administer the industry as if it were so many computer models, but will organise the lives and livelihoods of many of our constituents. My hon. Friends and I raised some points that represented the considered opinions of fishermen's representatives throughout the country, which have been expressed at fishing conferences—held by my union and others—over the years. Positive steps have not been taken over accidents, decasualisation and many other matters.
The opportunity has not been taken to rectify some ancient wrongs. Generally, the new authority has the support of all hon. Members, of most, if not all, of the representatives of the working people, and of many of the owners. If there is to be a separate representative for the Six Counties of Northern Ireland on the new Sea Fish Industry Authority, there should be a representative of the working people. It is not sufficient to represent the managers and owners. There must be someone to represent the interests of those who work in the industry.
One part of the Bill has not received a great deal of attention. Nevertheless, it is a welcome step—as far as it goes—in the right direction. I refer to the provision for the preservation of whales, dolphins and similar sea animals. If the provision is interpreted generously, and if the Minister's powers are used not in a restrictive but in an expansive manner, it will prove to be an important measure. We have concentrated on the fishing industry and perhaps we have ignored the public's great interest in the safety of these great creatures of the deep. In so far as we are able to look after them in our waters, this will prove to be a welcome development which should be recognised as such by the British people.

Mr. McQuarrie: I echo the words of the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason). In particular, I should like to refer to clause 2, which provides:


(1) It shall be the duty of the Authority to exercise its powers under this act for the purpose of promoting the efficiency of the sea fish industry and so as to serve the interests of that industry as a whole.
(2) In exercising its powers under this Part of this Act the Authority shall have regard to the interests of consumers of sea fish and sea fish products.
Under the Bill the powers are wide and they will reduce the fragmentation of the industry. The provision will give an uplift to those in the fishing industry. I say without any disrespect to the WFA and the HIB that this has been awaited by the industry for many years. There has been a feeling that there should be one body to serve the industry as a whole. The wide powers given by the Government in the Bill will be welcomed by the fishing industry, both offshore and onshore.
The industry as a whole has welcomed the Bill as it has progressed through Second Reading, Committee and Report stages. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister of State on the excellent manner in which he has directed the Bill through its Committee and Report stages and his tremendous work today in sitting in the Chamber throughout the Bill's Report stage and Third Reading. He has shown his complete faith in the Bill and deserves the congratulations of the House.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I echo the words expressed from almost every quarter of the House in commendation of both the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board. We should remind ourselves that both the authority and the board, the people who work for them and their connections with the industry, have done a great deal for the industry. I had personal experience before coming to the House of working with the industrial development unit based in Hull. I know the contribution that it made to develop fishing and fishing methods within the industry. We owe a debt of gratitude to those who worked in and took part in the running of both bodies.
I also welcome the establishment of the new Sea Fish Industry Authority. It begins its life because of changed circumstances. Never in the history of the fishing industry have there been such uncertainties and such fears for the future expressed by people working at sea and on shore.
The crisis in the industry is represented by the experience of a friend of mine whose name I shall not give because it would be embarrassing for him. He began business between eight and 10 years ago and always managed to make a decent living out of the industry. Now, for the first time in his life, he is faced with mounting debts to the extent that he cannot afford to leave the industry. If possible, he would leave, because he believes that the future is so bleak. Many people within the industry take that view. They would leave if they had the financial wherewithal to pay their debts. I believe, however, that the future of the industry may be better than some think.
The Bill as it stands gives wide powers to the new authority. I confess that in one or two areas I should like to have seen it possess greater powers both in terms of marketing of fish and in terms of safety. Nevertheless, it has wide powers in terms of aid to the industry. I hope that those who govern the councils of the new body will start work by taking the view that the industry is not one sectional industry. Looking at the industry as a whole and taking account of the needs and aspirations of those who

go to sea and fish and the needs of the processors and whoever else is involved in the industry, I hope that it will be remembered that the industry cannot succeed and cannot live without those who work in it as fishermen and those who are employed in the processing factories.
One of the disappointments is that the aid so far given to the industry has gone almost entirely to the owners and little, if any, has made its way to ordinary fishermen. I hope that the authority, if it takes all these factors into account, will earn the reputation of being as good for the industry as the two bodies that preceded it. I give the new authority my good wishes and hope that it will be a success.
I hope that the industry, in 10 years, partly as a result of negotiations and partly as a result of the new body, will be a much healthier and much better place for those who work in it, for those, we hope, who will consume the fish, and for catchers and processors.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: With the leave of the House, I shall respond to the debate. I thank the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) for his kind words of welcome to the Bill and for his acknowledgement of the work that has gone into it in Committee and on Report. I thank him for his courtesy.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about appointments to the authority. The procedures that we shall follow will be subject to consultation with the industry's representative organisations. It is important that we take those organisations along with us. We shall consult the industry on those who might be considered for appointment.
The authority will have power to set up consultative committees if it wishes to do so. I wish to leave it with the discretion and responsibility to establish its own consultative bodies in whatever area and form it feels appropriate.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to flags of convenience—an issue that in not directly within the remit of the authority. Regulatory powers rest with Ministers. The authority will be able to undertake any studies that it wishes and to report to Ministers as it thinks fit. There is genuine concern about flags of convenience. Studies are being undertaken by the Department of Trade, and officials in my Department are involved. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be entering into discussions with Ministers in the Department of Trade. The system can be subjected to abuse and we shall be considering ways in which it can be tightened.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about the common fisheries policy and the Bill's financial provisions. Far more important than anything that may be available financially to the industry, as a result of a settlement, is a framework for access and quotas. Those are the real issues that will allow the industry to live and prosper in future. That future does not rest merely on the injection on money. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman emphasised that, and struck that balance. We must get the proportions right when considering what is really important to the industry.
I thank the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) for his comments on what has been done to promote whale protection and the protection of smaller sea mammals, such as porpoises. We have taken


advantage of the Bill to make a sensible extension to existing powers, in the hope that we shall see these species properly conserved and properly cared for.
I thank those who participated in Committee and on Report. The attitude of hon. Members on both sides of the House towards the Bill has been constructive at all stages. I have found it an enjoyable Bill to pilot because of the cooperation that has been forthcoming from both sides of the House. As a consequence of the constructive manner that has been adopted we shall send from the House a better Bill than was brought to it, and for that I thank all those who have taken part.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

International Development Association (Finance)

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I beg to move,
That the draft International Development Association (Sixth Replenishment: Interim Payments) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 20 February, be approved.
I hope that it is not impertinent of me to congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your appointment and, with respect, to welcome you on your arrival in the Chair.
I move the order in the place of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), the Minister for Overseas Development, who is on an official overseas visit to aid projects. He hoped and expected to be back in time for the debate, but it has been somewhat brought forward, which is a good thing in itself. I am forced to take the place of my hon. Friend.
The House will recall—and this is the starting point of our present discussion—the draft order that was approved on 17 June last year. That order authorised the United Kingdom to take part in the sixth replenishment of the International Development Association. A very large sum is involved. The total United Kingdom contribution to the sixth replenishment will be £555 million, promised over three years from 1 July 1980 to 30 June 1983.
My hon. Friend explained in June last year, when submitting the order, why we felt it was right to contribute that large sum to the IDA. He explained that the IDA is an affiliate of the World Bank which gives loans on highly concessional and highly favourable terms to the poorest countries in the world. The House may like to know that over 60 per cent. of the IDA loans go to Commonwealth countries.
My hon. Friend also made it clear on that occasion—this is the key to our present debate—that the replenishment of the IDA depended on necessary legislation being passed in the United States Congress. He added that if that legislation were not carried the replenishment could not be effective and the order which the House approved in June could not be given effect. Unfortunately, that is what has happened.
Up to now there has been no American legislation and, therefore, there has been no sixth replenishment. Replenishment of the funds of the IDA has not, in the jargon, been triggered. It has not been able to start. As the House would expect, that has put the IDA in a difficult position. As has happened before in previous replenishment operations, the suggestion was made to the major donors that there should be a bridging operation to tide the IDA over the gap.
We felt it right to join in the bridging operation needed to allow the IDA to continue its work. The terms of that operation were published and laid before the House in Cmnd. 8156 on 19 February. The bridging operation is already in effect and about half the donors, including most of the large ones, are taking part. Consequently, the IDA has enough funds to maintain its existing programme until the beginning of April. Our proposed contribution embodied in the draft order would extend the programme for several weeks beyond that.
The draft order authorises Her Majesty's Government to contribute £185 million to the bridging operation. That


is equivalent to the first year tranche of what we would have contributed to the sixth replenishment. If the draft order is made, we propose to deposit at once a promissory note for about £92 million, which would be half the sum authorised in the draft order for the bridging operation. That would be a sensible way of handling the matter. That is in line with what several other donor countries are doing. It means that the British Government would shoulder a reasonable part of the burden created by the hiccup, or gap, in the replenishment operation.
The essentially technical arrangements that I have described will have a substantial impact on a matter that I know is of great interest to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone) and to the House generally—that is, Britain's 1980 aid performance measured as a proportion of GNP. It is worth explaining why, because this is the kind of technical point that occasionally can go astray.
It was decided recently by the development assistance committee of the OECD, which organises these statistics, that the promissory notes deposited with certain international financial institutions, including the IDA, which is much the largest of them, should count towards the annual total of development assistance. That means that they should count in the calculation of aid performance measured as a proportion of GNP.
The House will understand from the explanations that have been given that we have not, during the calendar year 1980, put in a promissory note representing one-third of our commitment to the sixth replenishment of the IDA simply because the replenishment has not been triggered. Therefore, that promissory note has not been lodged and will not count as part of our aid performance during 1980. We are still a little way away from the stage where we can give the House even a provisional figure for our aid performance measured as GNP during 1980 because both halves of the statement are still somewhat uncertain.
The hiccup over the replenishment of the IDA will mean that the figure of aid measured as a proportion of GNP for 1980 will be substantially lower than it would have been if the replenishment had gone ahead without difficulty. This is a technical point. We are talking not about a reduction of money spent in aid, but about a reduction in money promised for that aid through the IDA machinery through no fault of our own.

Mr. Frank Hooky: I do not understand this point. I think that the Minister said that by depositing the note that counts as part of the annual aid contribution. If, because of forces outside our control, that note is not valid, that must surely release funds that can be spent in other directions. The Minister cannot have it in both ways, counting it in favour of our aid figure if it is valid, by saying, if it is not valid, that the money is not free to be spent on other things.

Mr. Hurd: If the hon. Gentleman reflects on the matter, he will admit that an aid programme cannot be run on those lines. We are asking the House for authority to issue the promissory note which would normally have been issued during 1980. Now, with a delay of several months only, we are going ahead. We should look remarkably foolish if we had in some way committed that

sum last year and then found ourselves, as we do now and as we knew we would, in the position of having to commit it over again.
We are trying to warn in advance of the figures that this technical delay in the lodging of the promissory note will affect the figure of our aid performance in 1980, when it emerges, as a proportion of GNP. That alteration will not be a true measure of what has been spent on the aid programme. It is simply a technical result of the way in which the development assistance committee requires us to present the figures.
I turn to the future. I am glad to tell the House that the United States Administration have now told the IDA that they propose to ask Congress to authorise the full United States contribution to the replenishment. The American appropriations under the plan to be submitted to Congress will run behind schedule for the first two years, but at least they will be enough to start the replenishment. It is not for the House or the Government to say when Congress will approve the Administration's proposals. When it does the replenishment will begin, although late, and the bridging operation will be finished. I fear that the House will then have to approve a new order. We believe that it is best to proceed with absolute correctness. The draft order approved last June will not suffice in those circumstances. A fresh order will be required when the replenishment begins.
If the House approves the order tonight, the money contributed by Britain under the bridging operation will be attributed to us in credit for the first year of the replenishment. It will be a book-keeping transaction. When replenishment begins we shall be credited with the amount of the promissory notes made under the bridging operation.
These are technical matters, but it is necessary to put them to the House because they are the justification for asking it to approve a new order when in essence it has already discussed the matter last June. The basic point is not technical, however. Large sums of money are involved, which is an important political and economic point. We have a major international programme—the largest multilateral programme for the great majority of recipients in the poorest countries. It was threatened with interruption, which could have been serious.
In theory, it would have been open for us—if we had been as mean-minded as is sometimes suggested—to take shelter behind the problems of the United States Government. It would have been open to us to have refused to take part in a bridging operation. We did not take that step as we did not think that it would be in the interests of Britain and its contribution to world development. We accepted that we had an interest and a responsibility to ensure that the IDA could continue work that we believed to be good. I hope that the House shares our judgment and that it will approve the order.

Mr. Frank McElhone: May I take this opportunity to offer you my sincere congratulations on your new appointment, Mr. Deputy Speaker? You have always been a highly respected Member of the House. I have no doubt that you will bring a great deal of respect to the Chair. I wish you well.
I shall not attempt to repeat the arguments advanced by my right hon. and hon. Friends when the House debated the same subject on 17 June last year. I was not present


during that debate, but on reading the report of the proceedings it appeared to me that my right hon. and hon. Friends were in no way satisfied with the Minister's answers. If he checks the Official Report I am sure that he will agree with me. We support the order, but I want to take the opportunity to ask several relevant questions and to follow up particularly the last comments of the Minister.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the difficulty that has led to this debate. As I understand it, from the memorandum to the report of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments:
The replenishment has not come into effect as intended because of the failure of the United States Congress to authorise the United States' contribution".
I am pleased that the Minister indicated that that promise has now been made. From discussions with colleagues who are very experienced in this matter, I understand that promises have been made before by Administrations in the United States and difficulty has then been experienced in getting the replenishment through. I therefore look at that promise with a certain degree of caution. It is a pity that the Prime Minister did not take the opportunity to raise this matter when she was discussing many things in Washington last week. It would have been of greater benefit to the image of this country than discussing support for the United States in its policy towards El Salvador.
Cuts in aid from the United States as a major contributor are extremely serious and have an effect on the attitude of other countries. That is why this is important. I have already made the point to the Prime Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary, as I know that neither he nor the Prime Minister will be present tonight.
As a major contributor to this association we should take some responsibility for its projects. I therefore hope that the Minister will take note of some of the questions. If we are providing the substantial sums of money that he indicated, I hope that he will agree that responsibility for the way in which the money is allocated is a major part of our function, because we are a governor of the association as well as a part I contributor.
The latest report of the IDA that is available in the Library is that for 1978. On reading it I was rather disappointed to learn that parts of the programme concerning education, water and sewerage and population seem to have a very low priority. I acknowledge that agriculture has the highest priority, and I am not complaining about that, but the other three important elements of any Third world programme have a very low priority.
I refer the Minister to page 24 of the IDA report of that year. Talking about project appraisal it says:
Project appraisal involves more than saying 'yes' or 'no' to a proposal. It requires detailed investigation of at least six different aspects of the proposal: economic, technical (including environmental), managerial, organisational, commercial and financial.
I should like to touch briefly on two of the criteria for the allocation of the money. I ask the Minister if he would reply to me—not tonight—regarding a very serious issue raised in The Observer and The Vole magazine last weekend about the dumping of pesticides in Third world countries. These do enormous damage. In the IDA report this question is asked:
Will the project have adverse effects on the environment of the country or on the health and well-being of its inhabitants?
So that organisation itself poses the question how our money and money from other countries will be used. The

Minister should look at The Observer and The Vole magazine. The House is indebted to these two publications for highlighting that matter.
There is another important matter. One of the major criteria in allocating money is an economic investigation of projects to ascertain the number of jobs that it will create, and the rate of return. I hope that that is not acceptable. The IDA is part of the United Nations development programme, in one sense. I was disturbed to read in The Observer last Sunday that in Nepal children of 7 years of age are working a nine-hour day as labourers carrying 20lb loads of gravel for 30p a day. I ask the Minister to investigate that report.
If the Minister expects the Opposition to support an order for £555 million of the British taxpayers' money to be allocated to the IDA, the Government, as a governor of the association, have the responsibility to investigate such reports. It is soul-destroying to read such reports and it is abominable to have to talk about them. I hope that they will be investigated.
Finally, I should like to touch on the beguiling explanation that the Minister sought to give on another matter. I should like to get from him the answer to a question that I put to him a few days ago: what is the net amount of official development assistance for the calendar year 1980?
The total amount coming through the aid programme, whether to multilateral programmes, such as that of the IDA, or bilateral programmes, which are especially important to the poorer countries, will represent a dismal picture. It is all very well to say that we did not get the promissory notes tacked on to the 1980 programme because of the failure of the American Congress to agree, but we know that the Minister or his right hon. Friend will have to make a dismal announcement.
We know that these promissory notes are deposited with the Bank of England, with the rest of the contributions, to make up the total amount expressed as a percentage of GNP. During the period of the Labour Government it was not counted in that way. It looks better for the Government when done in this way. Therefore, I ask the question, to which I am sure he knows the answer—if not, he can get it from the box before the debate is concluded: will he either confirm or deny that the net amount of official development assistance for the calendar year 1980 is not above 0·34 per cent. of GNP?
I do not wish to appear petulant, but when the hon. Gentleman responded to the debate on the Brandt report in December, in the course of which I put four specific initiatives to him, I did not receive a reply from him at the Dispatch Box and I have not received an answer by letter. It is discourteous to the House not to reply to a member of the Opposition, whether he be a Front Bencher or Back Bencher. I hope that that message is not lost on him or on the people advising him.
I press the Minister to give me an answer now. It will be painful medicine, and it will cause dismay throughout the Third world and to committed people in this country. Bad medicine is easier to swallow at this time of night, but it will cause a great deal of dismay not only to people in this country but to the Third world.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to echo what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr.


McElhone) about your presence in the Chair. We are sure that you will not only maintain the high standards to which we are accustomed but give Back Benchers the benefit of the doubt when doubt arises.
Yesterday the House dealt with the nuclear sword, and this evening those of us who are interested are dealing with the ploughshares. As the Minister said, the International Development Association contribution of Britain is perhaps the most important, significant and, I am sure, major part of our multilateral contribution. Therefore, it befits a little more examination than we have given it up to now. The sum of £500 million, even over three years, is substantial.
Although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Queen's Park has mentioned, there is an annual report for 1978 in the Library, will the Minister enlighten us a little more on the current programme? We have before us today Cmnd. 7900, which is the sixth replenishment document, issued by the executive directors on 15 January 1980. However, that document relates largely to the collection of money. It tells us what countries are contributing what sums. There is not much indication of the past and future distribution of those moneys. When we have these debates, we usually debate a White Paper relating to payment of sums.
Will the Minister say whether there is any opportunity to discuss how the money is used other than in these debates? The control of the House over its moneys is exercised at the time of voting the money, and that time is now. I take it that the Minister will probably say that this is the occasion—and perhaps a future occasion, if we have one, as he said.
Paragraph 1 of the report on the IDA, Cmnd. 7900, says:
The development projects financed by IDA must meet the same economic and financial standards; the procedures for credit appraisal, approval and supervision".
Those are the same as the other projects which are financed by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development or the World Bank. I suggest that that is all right, within reason.
However, everyone knows that the soft loans, which are the speciality of the IDA, are for those nations which have the minimum resources. Where natural resources are limited, most effort is required to provide reasonable standards for the people of those countries. Those people are often in the most remote areas about which least is known, from which cash or kind returns are already low and whose inputs, or the inputs required, need to be much greater in order to provide any measured return.
I have no doubt that the criteria applied to the IDA loans are not the same as those applied to the IBRD or World Bank loans of the other type. However, I question whether the difference is sufficient. Will the Minister give us particulars about that matter, either now or at some other time.
Understandably and properly, in paragraph 8, the report states, with reference to the least developed countries, that
despite some large urban concentrations, the bulk of the population lives in rural areas and it is the investments necessary to raise agricultural output that will be crucial for achieving faster growth and alleviating poverty.
The report states that 46 per cent. of the lending and 45 per cent. of the operations are in the agricultural and rural development sector.
In paragraph 10, the report states:

Extending across all sectors is an attempt to design IDA projects to increase the income and employment opportunities of those in the poorest income groups. This trend is exemplified by IDA lending in rural development for projects aimed to expand output of small scale farmers and tenants and bring the land less into the productive process.

Mr. Bowen Wells: One of the main purposes of the IDA, as I understand it—I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman agrees—is to make available what would in our society be described as equity capital. Small businesses and small agricultural operators cannot work and cannot guarantee to repay loans at the interest rates which have to be applied by the World Bank. The IDA gives that opportunity, and it is not necessarily to the poorest countries and the poorest people. It is the people with initiative and enterprise who simply cannot be financed in any other way. This is the importance of the IDA subscription.

Mr. Spearing: I think that I would half agree with what the hon. Gentleman says, but the point he makes—that it depends upon those with initiative and enterprise to get things off the ground—is at odds with the point which I have just quoted, which means that it is those who have least to provide who need aid most. Without going further into the matter, I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that the very objective of the IDA itself in the macro-scale has to be repeated on the micro-scale on the ground if the IDA is to achieve its aims, and what I am not sure about is whether that happens in the application of similar criteria.
I was about to say that the Labour Government's White Paper,"More Help to the Poorest", Cmnd. 6270, reflected that philosophy in Britain's aid programme. My information is that there has been a modification in that regard in respect of the United Kingdom's aid programme itself, and I draw to the Minister's attention the report of the former Select Committee on Overseas Development regarding aid to India, in which a number of recommendations were made to follow that very type of policy. The Government's response was not encouraging.
I shall not go into that now since that is not the purpose of this debate, but I put it to the Minister as one of the points which he should now consider and perhaps pass on to his hon. Friends, because it illustrates what my hon. Friend the Member for Queen's Park said about the ironic fact that our debate tonight, and indeed the recycling of this contribution, is necessitated by the attitude of the United States.
I do not say that that is the attitude of the President of the United States. It is clearly at present a matter for the American Legislature. But the fact that nothing was said by the Prime Minister on her return from the United States about a possible conversation on issues relating to the North-South dialogue was a notable omission from that announcement. It was not just what the President said but what was not discussed which was of great significance. For the Prime Minister, or, indeed, President Reagan, to think of Western security only in terms of arms—which was the clear impression which the House received on her return—shows how narrow the horizons of that gentleman and the right hon. Lady seem to be.
I notice from the report that El Salvador is a contributor to the IDA, as are many other perhaps less well founded countries, but it does not figure in the list of recipients. Ghana does, and so does India. I wonder why that should


be. Is it that the regime in El Salvador was not particularly willing to have the sort of project in which the IDA specialises?
If we are to ensure that there is freedom from want, that there is freedom from fear, if there is to be freedom from exploitation and if there is to be real security, the activities of the IDA are much more likely to supply those benefits than are the activities of military advisers. That is at the heart of what is perhaps one of the major debates in this country today. We have witnessed a considerable increase, and a quite proper increase, of interest in matters relating to the North-South dialogue.
I have been told by colleagues that the number of meetings which they have been asked to attend and address where people come and respond to what is popularly known as the Brandt report is a marked feature of British life today. It is significant that this has occurred at the same time as the Government, as we heard last night, are preparing to spend not £500 million but goodness knows how many more millions, albeit over a much longer period, on something entirely negative. I believe that that is against the present predilections and interests of the British people. I have tried to show that if we want real security and freedom, attending to the matters to which the IDA attends is much the more likely way to achieve them.

Mr. Edward Lyons: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if one could achieve some degree of multilateral disarmament, the amount of money that would be freed for assisting the underdeveloped countries would be vastly greater than it is today? One of the great prizes that would result from disarmament—either entire or to a degree, mutually agreed—would be that those vast resources could rejuvenate large parts of Africa and Asia, including perhaps getting rid of sleeping sickness and other terrible diseases which also damage productivity so greatly in those areas.

Mr. Spearing: I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend. I am saying that we should start with equivalent concern at the outset. But it is clear from the events of the last few days that the Government do not have that in mind.
IDA is one of the brighter spots, all being well and America permitting. I am not sure that that great nation, which itself was in the forefront of the fight for freedom against an overseas autocracy to which it was subject, has fully grasped the world dimensions that it now has to face. I hope that the American Administration will learn quickly. I am sure that certain members of our own Administration will try to help them learn. I hope that the House of Commons will do so at the same time.
My final point relates to a nation which does not appear in the IDA report because I do not think that it existed on 15 January 1980. I refer to the independent nation of Zimbabwe. In that country, many of the problems of the world can be seen almost in microcosm. They include disarmament, to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) referred. A number of people there are certainly not disarmed, and that country certainly needs to see them disarmed, as indeed does the world as a whole. Within that country's own boundaries, the geographical and income divisions between North and South are reflected. It is a country which has great potential for development, but in which large numbers of people live in conditions comparable with those that the IDA fund seeks to alleviate.
I realise that on a per capita basis Zimbabwe may not qualify in quite the same way as other countries, but the tables show that India benefits from the IDA as being in the dualistic category, so it may be that in the future Zimbabwe, too, will benefit from the sixth replenishment.
I hope that in the short time at my disposal I have put to the Government some of the discontents of people who are by no means pacifists in the strict sense of the term. Whatever one's personal views, I think that the majority of people in this country are not of that description. But I also believe that by far the overwhelming majority would wish to see Britain's economic effort placed behind activities such as that pioneered by the IDA because therein is real security and real freedom. Through activities of that kind, we can ensure that those who peddle arms and alien political philosophies will not have the justification or excuse which unfortunately in many places they at present have.
I am not sure that the Government have yet taken that point of view. I hope that in succeeding debates on issues of this sort the Government will begin to understand that. I hope that in the not-too-distant future the same will apply to the United States of America.

Mr. Frank Hooley: As a fellow Methodist, it gives me particular pleasure to congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on assuming the Chair and joining a long line of distinguished Methodists in that place in the House. I wish you a long and happy tenure of office.
I welcome the fact that the Government have taken part in this bridging operation in the IDA. I certainly welcome the order. However, the reasons for having to introduce it are quite deplorable. The failure of the United States Congress to live up to its international obligations in this respect—I say"obligations", although I accept that this is technically a voluntary contribution—is quite deplorable and highly damaging to the image of the Western world.
In fact, after the refusal to ratify SALT, refusal to take part in the IDA must rank as one of the most short-sighted acts of policy since America failed to join the League of Nations in 1919 or thereabouts.

Mr. Hurd: Has the hon. Gentleman thought about the Soviet contribution to IDA?

Mr. Hooley: We are dealing with the reasons for bringing the order before the House. As the Minister explained, the failure of the United States Congress to authorise the United States contribution is directly relevant to that. I say"Congress" because, as the Minister fairly said, the United States Administration have recommended this once already, and the new Administration are recommending it again. Therefore, the fault lies firmly in the laps of the Representatives and Senators in the United States Congress. It is quite deplorable that it has failed on this occasion, as it failed so disastrously to ratify SALT, with what may be appalling consequences for the world at large in the near future.
In fact, as my hon. Friends said, it is depressing that when the Prime Minister came back from Washington, so far as I recall—I am subject to correction—she had absolutely nothing to say on the subject of the replenishment of IDA or, indeed, of Washington's attitude


to the North-South dialogue at large. However, there was a long diatribe on the subject of the rapid deployment force and weapons, armaments, and so forth.
Whereas the American Administration have suddenly found it expedient, within a short time, to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into supporting a corrupt and discredited Government in El Salvador, they have over the past six months or more failed to authorise this replenishment to the IDA, which would do far more for democracy and peace and the well-being of the ordinary people of countries such as El Salvador than sending military advisers by the dozen, score, or 50 and pouring in money in order to back up a discredited regime.
I understand that a fair number of the donors to the IDA are taking part in this bridging operation. I very much welcome that. In my speech in June last year I referred to the rather poor performance of Japan and West Germany, but I am glad to say that since that date both countries have announced substantial increases in their aid programmes. That is a welcome move, particularly from two such important and wealthy OECD countries.
It is, therefore, even more regrettable that this should be offset by a failing on the part of the United States of America and, to some extent, by our prediction of cuts in the aid programmes. It is a great pity that Congress has not yet taken the necessary action. We are approaching the important summit meeting in Mexico. I assume that the United States of America will take part in the summit. Indeed, I gather that the United Kingdom will also take part.
The United States of America will not approach that summit in a strong or helpful position if its contribution to this very important international fund remains unratified. From the Minister's statement, I was not sure whether the American Administration were simply making a recommendation to Congress in the hope that the replenishment would be made or whether there was an indication that Congress would fulfil its obligation to stump up the money. During our last debate on this subject we were told that the American Administration had made that recommendation. It was hoped that Congress would play its part. However, in the event that did not happen.
I turn to a specific point that was raised during last June's debate but to which we did not receive an adequate answer. The Minister for Overseas Development said:
We have therefore agreed with IDA management, with the understanding of the other donor countries, a special arrangement whereby the drawings against our contribution will be lower than they would otherwise have been for the first six years.
That formula will enable us to reduce substantially the cost to public funds over the next few years of contributing to the replenishment.
In other words, although the promissory note would be deposited for the full amount, there appeared to be a private understanding that we would not pay out the money, or that the IDA would claim only a limited amount of money against that promissory note.
I sought some clarification in that debate. I made the following observation:
Clearly, if for some reason the drawing by the IDA were limited by some informal understanding, which is not on the record and which is not even explained to this House, we might find that instead of our aid programme including, say, £50 million to the IDA in a particular year, the effect was about £25 million. Then we would come to the end of the financial year and, lo and behold, to our surprise, the aid programme would

have again been underspent by £20 million or so, instead of its reduced aggregate being spent right up to whatever the new figure is.
We need some clear explanation of these limitations on drawings, what the practical effect will be and, in short and simple terms, what is likely to be our expenditure against the aid programme on the IDA—I emphasise 'expenditure', not 'commitment'".—[Official Report, 17 June 1980; Vol. 986, c. 1486–96.]
I do not recall receiving a clear explanation from the Minister about the extent of the financial commitment within the aid programme in respect of the promissory note. I understand that the promissory note will be deposited and that that constitutes a commitment by the United Kingdom to stump up £184 million. However, the Minister pointed out that there was some private agreement about the limitation on the drawings by the IDA. I wonder whether the bridging operation also includes that agreement. If so, to what extent? What impact will it have on our disbursement? Presumably, there will be nothing in the current financial year, as we are practically at the end of that. However, it would presumably have some effect on the financial year 1981–82.
We would need to be assured that underdrawing might be offset by expenditure elsewhere. I take it that the Treasury will certainly not permit any overdrawing. We need to know the effect of this commitment to the IDA in cash terms in 1981–82, although I fully support the order and feel sure that it will be approved without opposition from the Labour Benches.

Mr. William Hamilton: I add my congratulations to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your appointment. As a fellow North-Easterner, I expect preferential treatment in subsequent debates in the House!
It would be remiss of me to compare the motivation for this debate with the motivation for debates that occur on many other occasions in the House. Most hon. Members who are present are genuinely concerned, on what I hope is a non-party basis, with the problems of the underprivileged sections of the world. There are hundreds of millions of people who will not be sleeping tonight in a bed and who will not know when they will get their next meal. I am sure that I shall have the support of Conservative Members when I say that it is a relief to get away from the internal squalor of my own party's theological discussions—I put it as mildly as I can—and listen to a debate of this kind.
I must compare the atmosphere tonight with the atmosphere engendered by the Prime Minister when she reported on Monday on her return from the United States. She reminded me very much of a female Hitler—the bellicose noises that she made, the sabre-rattling, the phraseology, couched in militaristic terms, against the Soviet Union and against anyone who dared to challenge the authority and the power of the United States. It is one of the great attractions of this House that one can move from the atmosphere created by a Prime Minister whose policies are in ruins around her and who, because of that, has to make bellicose noises about the threats from outside to what we are discussing now.
The threat to world peace is not what the Prime Minister described on Monday. It is not from the Soviet Union. It is the indescribable poverty and misery and deprivation of three-quarters of the world's population. The IDA and


other bodies are trying to tackle this problem, but they are not even scratching its surface. This Government will go down in the records, irrespective of the complete failure and ruin of their domestic policies, as the Government who failed to meet the challenge of the Third world. The name of this Government is mud in the Third world. At the same time that they come to the House and say that they will spend £5,000 million over 15 years—it will be a lot more than that—on a militaristic weapon against an unknown enemy, they say that they cannot afford 0·7 of 1 per cent. of total GNP to help hundreds of millions of starving people. It is an obscenity for which the world will never forgive us.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone) said that the 1980 figure would be 0·34 per cent. of the GNP. The Minister had better say whether that is right. We expect an answer, and we shall find out in due course whether there is any substance in that suggestion. Certainly the figure is well below the 0·7 per cent. that is the recognised minimum target throughout the developed world.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: If £5 billion is spent over 15 years on the Trident missile programme, on present projections we shall be spending £13 billion on overseas aid in that period.

Mr. Hamilton: I cannot challenge those figures now, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give me chapter and verse. I very much doubt that they are facts. But let us assume for the sake of argument that they are. What conceivable defence is there for spending those enormous sums on military might when there are massive problems in the world? There are no civilised grounds for that kind of priority.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) talked about people flocking to meetings throughout the country, not on military might but on development of the poverty-stricken world, which is crying out for such resources to be devoted to it. I wish to quote from an article in The Times on 24 February; I am sure that the Minister has read it. It was headed:
West needs to refine strategy for Third World, report says".
The article told of a study produced by the British Atlantic Committee's defence and overseas policy working group, whose chairman is Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir Neil Cameron. The document is entitled"A Global Strategy to meet the Global Threat: A British Initiative". The article in The Times said:
A more constructive overseas aid programme, freer trade—with an end to creeping protectionism'—more effort in the areas of peacekeeping and disaster relief, are also among proposals put forward.
My next quotation answers in part an intervention by the Minister. I agreed with him when he asked one of my hon. Friends"What about the Soviet Union?". Although I am criticising our aid programme, we should compare it with that of the Soviet Union. The article continues:
the West should also ensure that it gets the credit"—
for whatever it is doing, however little we are doing.
Few realize that it already provides 30 per cent. more aid than does the Soviet Union—two-thirds of whose aid is military equipment anyway.
The Opposition are here to criticise the inadequacies of the Government's policies, but we must put them in their context to answer those other critics on the Left who

pretend that we are doing nothing—certainly not as much as other people. It is important to put the Soviet Union's activity in that context.
The article says that the working group proposes a"transatlantic forum", whose first purpose
would be to stem the Soviet advance in the third world, where the Russians have built up a 'spectacular' capacity to interfere with the flow of oil, raw materials and trade. They now have many more airborne troops than the United States, and could land 50,000 men in 1,000 aircraft in the Gulf within 48 hours.
I presume that it was that kind of threat that induced the Prime Minister to say in America that we were prepared to put an advance force in the Gulf virtually at a moment's notice.
I do not believe, and large numbers of people in this country do not believe, that that military response is the answer to the major world problems that we are facing. I am sorry that the House is so thinly attended and that we are discussing this matter at so late an hour. The response that we ought increasingly to be making to the world problem is not in terms of military hardware, but in terms of financial and technical aid to people who are crying out for it and who have no use for military equipment, sophisticated or otherwise. If the debate serves no useful purpose other than to focus attention on that problem, it will not have been in vain.

Mr. Hurd: This has been a short but interesting debate, and I should like to reply briefly to some of the points that have been made.
I came to the conclusion that one or two of the speeches to which I listened, including that of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone), must have been written on the assumption that the Government were refusing to take part in the bridging operation and were turning their back on the IDA. One would have thought that, however grudgingly, the Opposition would welcome the Government's policy in this respect, and I suppose that the reason why they did not was that it contradicted many of their criticisms of our general attitude to these matters. Given the fact that this is a major decision, involving large sums of money, with which, to judge from the speeches, the House agrees, one would have thought that there would be a welcome for it. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) was the only person who had the grace to say that. I should not claim this on many occasions, but I think that for once we are entitled to have a certain need of praise.
The hon. Member for Queen's Park, in a reasonable and agreeable way, raised a number of detailed points. I am sorry if he feels aggrieved because I did not answer his last speech in detail. I have looked it up. There were a number of controversial proposals—some of which have been dealt with in other speeches—about Southern Africa and EDF. I apologise for the delay, but I shall write to the hon. Gentleman on the specific points that he raised.
The hon. Gentleman spoke this evening about the priorities of education, water/sewerage and population. Taking the World Bank and IDA together, one finds that the three sectors of education, water/sewerage and population accounted for large sums of their lending, namely, 10 per cent. or $1,200 million in the year to 30 June 1980. I think that that shows the priority that they give to these subjects, and they agreed two years ago to a rise in education lending to about S9 million a year. By


a decision of the board in July 1979 health and population aid are being expanded, and the bank will concentrate on primary health care.
We accept that we, as a leading member, have a responsibility to comment on the technical and economic aspects of the projects, through our director, when they come to the board, and this applies to bank and IDA-financed projects.

Mr. McElhone: I discussed this matter with World Bank officials in Washington not long ago, and they pointed out that only 4 per cent. of the World Bank programme has been allocated to education. I think that education is a primary factor. These figures might be wrong, but on looking at the 1978 report I was disturbed to see that compared with the assistance provided by other regimes to the Third world education and water/sewerage have a low priority, and population control is not even mentioned.

Mr. Hurd: I have already given rather more recent figures than those that the hon. Gentleman has quoted. I shall make inquiries about 4 per cent. for education. However, it is difficult to assess priorities among these desirable projects.
As for pesticides, I seem to recall that The Observer article referred to the FAO and not the IDA. The Nepal scheme is nothing to do with the IDA. It is the responsibility of the UNDP, or another United Nations agency. I shall undertake an investigation and tell the hon. Gentleman what we know about these matters.
The hon. Members for Queen's Park, Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and Heeley talked about America. It is not reasonable to ask me to add to what I have already said. The United States Congress did not act during last year. The new United States Administration, contrary to some press predictions, have decided once again to submit to the United States Congress legislation for the sixth replenishment. I cannot say whether Congress will deal with that swiftly or whether it will approve it in its entirety—these are not matters for me—but we hope that it will do so. We were told of the policy decision by the new Administration before my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister went to Washington. It was already in the bag as part of the Administration's policy. I do not think that there is any mystery or difficulty about that.
The hon. Member for Heeley is usually fair about these matters, but he was using dark and violent adjectives about the United States when the Soviet bloc was absent from these helpful activities. It is not fair for us to criticise the United States because there is a hiccup in the large sums that it provides for this and many other enterprises, without directing some of our adjectives to those who take no part in these matters and whose aid efforts are directed to an amazing extent to the distribution of arms and military equipment.
The hon. Member for Heeley pressed me legitimately on the question of what my hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development said in June about the arrangements that have been made to reduce the drawings on our contribution to the sixth replenishment. My hon. Friend explained in June that these arrangements, which are set out in the Command Paper, would reduce the drawings on our contribution during the first six years to 7·6 per cent. of quarterly drawings instead of 10·1 per cent., and that

that difference would be made up in the last four years of the period over which drawings under the sixth replenishment are expected to last.
I have already described the financial arrangements for the bridging operation. They are not affected by the arrangements for the full replenishment, which my hon. Friend described in June and which I have repeated.
It is not possible to give figures for the exact cash spending under these arrangements in any given future year, but I can say that the effect in 1981–82 is certain to be very small.
Several hon. Members, especially and most eloquently the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), ranged widely with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and dealt with the crucial balance between the efforts that we and our allies make in security and economic development. It is correct to say that there is great interest among British people in this issue, especially among the schools, universities, Churches and charities. I welcome that. The more that we can discuss important matters and move away from some of the artifical sparring that vexes us all, the more any real politician should welcome it. I do, and I think that all my hon. Friends who take part in these discussions outside the House welcome it also. The more one discusses these matters the more one gets away from a simple feeling that the only measurement is the measurement of official aid. Of course that is a factor and, with the poorest countries, an important factor, otherwise we should not be discussing the order. But it is not the only one, as is becoming clear.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone) twitted me—I do not complain, and I was not surprised—about the aid performance and the ratio to GNP. The figures are uncertain, and I shall not give uncertain figures tonight. The hon. Gentleman did not question me when I explained why, in one important technical respect—which falls directly into the debate, because it is concerned with the IDA—the figures will be substantially lower than they would have been if there had not been this hiccup over the IDA. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are in possession of that fact. When the figures are out we shall watch carefully whether they play fair or explain this important technical consideration to their hon. Friends.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central made a great deal of noise about how disgraceful it would be if the figure were low. I am not sure whether he was in the House when I dealt with the matter, but if he was he has already forgotten. There is a great task of education before the hon. Member for Queen's Park, who is fully seized of the importance of the technical argument. We shall see how he discharges that responsibility.

Mr. McElhone: The Minister is trying to do a difficult job with the best spirit that he can muster. Like the rest of the Government, he is acutely embarrassed. Will he help his Prime Minister? The right hon. Lady has a supplementary answer burning a hole in her memory because of the way she described the aid handout. She is greatly disturbed by the figure. If the Minister will not tell us the truth, let him help the Prime Minister and tell us the shocking figure. It will be easy for him, because it is late at night.

Mr. Hurd: My right hon. Friend needs no help from me. I am doing my best to explain the basic facts that underly the figure in one important respect, when it is possible to produce a reasoned estimate of what it is.
Quite apart from the arguments about human suffering that the hon. Member for Fife, Central deployed, it is true that world stability depends to a substantial extent on the efforts made to relieve world poverty, not just by us but by the oil producers, OPEC and the others. There is a connection. If there were no such connection we should not be making the substantial effort that is illustrated by the order.
The hon. Member and his hon. Friends should not claim that this is the be-all and end-all. It is no good telling the people of Afghanistan that their problems are caused by inadequate expenditure by IDA, the World Bank or the other agencies of the United Nations. That is nonsense. In Zimbabwe economic assistance is enormously important, but the pressing need is to prevent the outbreak of a new form of civil war. What we are doing in the way of military training to a large extent comes under our defence budget, to which the hon. Member for Fife, Central is so passionately opposed. What we are doing in Zimbabwe is just as important as the lead we have given in giving economic aid to that country. These things must be considered together, if one is talking about the real world and not a world of fantasy.

Mr. James Johnson: The Minister goes to Africa, as I do. Is it not his experience, when he talks to local people in Khartoum, Lagos, or anywhere else, that they are disappointed with our performance—that it is not what they expect? They feel that we have done better in the past. We are doing less and less, on the excuse of the economy at home. Are not they calling out loud for teachers and for other help with the English language, which is vital for our merchants exporting goods?

Mr. Hurd: That is not my experience. I have not been to Lagos but I have been to Khartoum and I have had discussions with the President on exactly these matters. I know that in Khartoum, where we are proposing to put a lot of money into the new power station, which is crucial for the life of that city, so far from disappointment or the kind of grudging remarks that come in abundance from the Labour Benches, we find a great deal of appreciation. Of course, they would like us to do more. That is natural. We should like to do more. I do not accept the argument put rather crudely from the Opposition Benches about our name being mud. That does not accord with my experience.
A clear balance is required. If we are to have a stable and more decent world there must be political activity, an economic effort—of which this order is an illustration—and a sustained, sensible and intelligent effort on security. In discussing one, do not let us dismiss the need for the others. It is in that spirit that I ask the House to approve the order.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft International Development Association (Sixth Replenishment: Interim Payments) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 20 February, be approved.

Humberside (Electoral Arrangements)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Thompson.]

Dr. Edmund Marshall: I am grateful for this opportunity of drawing to the attention of the House an order made by the Home Secretary on 6 February entitled the County of Humberside (Electoral Arrangements) Order 1981 which is Statutory Instrument 1981 No. 167. It is a statutory instrument for which there is no parliamentary procedure, so it has not been formally laid before the House, and it has been made in the exercise of the Home Secretary's administrative powers and responsibilities.
The effect of the order is to bring in new electoral divisions for the elections of members of Humberside county council on 7 May this year and thereafter for probably about 15 years. The electoral divisions which have applied since 1973 are abolished by article 3( 1) of the order.
The order implements in full and without modification report No. 407 of the Local Government Boundary Commission which was first submitted to the Home Secretary on 2 December 1980, as amended by a correction sheet dated January 1981. The date on the correction sheet is important because the Home Secretary is required by section 51(2) of the Local Government Act 1972 to allow six weeks to expire between his receipt of the report from the commission and any action by him on the basis of the report. In this case there certainly were not six weeks between the receipt of the correction sheet in January and the making of the order on 6 February.
That point might not be important if the corrections simply arose from typing errors or misnomers in the original report. But certainly one of the corrections relating to the Kingsway electoral division of Scunthorpe added to the area of that division and it could be construed as a material amendment to the contents of the report. It may be that only the courts can decide whether six weeks should have elapsed between the submission of that correction and the making of any order based on the report. But no doubt the Minister of State will ponder on that point and take the advice of the Attorney-General.
One criticism of the order relates to the names given to the new electoral divisions specified in the schedule to the order. I was surprised to find that three of the 75 new electoral divisions proposed for Humberside have been given the same name—Park. There is to be a Park ward in Grimsby, in Cleethorpes and in Kingston upon Hull. Imagine the confusion if more than one constituency represented in the House has the same name. Complications will arise because three electoral divisions for Humberside will have the same name. For example, when candidates are nominated for elections the nomination paper must include the name of the electoral division for which they are nominated. One could argue that it is not clear for which of the three Park wards a candidate is being nominated. That could lead to further complications.
Two electoral divisions are to be named Ferry. One will be in Glanford and the other in Kingston upon Hull. It is clear that in the repetition of the names of electoral


divisions the Local Government Boundary Commission made a real mistake in its report, which has been carried over to the order made by the Home Secretary.
I turn to the geographical areas of the new electoral divisions outlined in the report. I shall give the House one example. In my constituency the map demonstrates clearly the geographical absurdity of some of the electoral division boundaries. The Minister knows, because I referred the matter to him previously, of the absurdity of the Mid-Boothferry electoral division which consists of 19 parishes stretching from Pollington, Gowdall and Snaith in the west to Crowle and Amcotts in the south and east. Although those 19 parishes form a continuous land mass, they are not connected by any public highway passing through the electoral division. In the middle of Goole Moors, between Rawcliffe, Snaith and Cowick on one side and Goole Fields and Swinefleet on the other, there is no road, nor even a cart track. Pedestrians could perhaps get through by following the line of a long disused railway, but they may be trespassing by doing so. To travel by road between the two halves of the Mid-Boothferry electoral division requires either going through two other divisions, Boothferry, West and Goole, or going outside the county altogether through Thorne in South Yorkshire.
The two halves of the Mid-Boothferry division belong to distinct communities, with Crowle in the former area of Lincolnshire looking towards Scunthorpe and Snaith looking towards Goole in the old West Riding of Yorkshire. It would not be feasible to hold a count of any election for that division within the division itself. Almost certainly the ballot boxes would have to be taken to the town of Goole. It might be some considerable time after the close of polls before they all safely arrived.
Another odd feature of the electoral divisions for the Boothferry part of Humberside is that no division consists entirely of parts of the town of Goole. Part of the town is to lie in the Boothferry West division, and part in the Goole division. Both divisions take in parishes outside the town. The map shows that the electoral divisions around Goole are nothing other than a carve-up, with strange boundaries cutting through the centre of the town. They fail to reflect any community interest. They ignore the social cohesion of the town.
I was grateful, together with some of my hon. Friends, for the opportunity to meet the Minister to talk about the geographical defects of the proposals. It is a real disappointment that following that meeting the Minister, who is a reasonable man, immediately endorsed the commission's proposals without modification. He might have made some modification to overcome these difficulties that I have talked about in Boothferry. I know that the alternative scheme which I put to him for Boothferry when I saw him involved more varied electorates for the various divisions. As I explained then, the unusual shape of the county, plus the presence of three tidal rivers—the Trent, the Ouse and the Aire—prevent one from getting numerical perfection between the divisions without involving some geographical absurdity, as the order does.
I have now had the advantage of obtaining the 1981 electorate statistics for the whole borough of Boothferry. On the basis of those figures I have been able to improve

on the scheme which I put to the Minister earlier. I shall be pleased to send him details of that improved scheme after this debate, if he wishes.
If it is the numerical factor which has most influenced the Home Secretary in endorsing the Boundary Commission's proposals, then he has perpetrated two monumental howlers elsewhere in the county, in Hull and in the Cottingham area. If my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) succeeds in catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will no doubt elaborate on the electoral disparities between the divisions which have been proposed for Hull, varying in the 1984 estimates from 4,835 in West Bransholme and 6,641 in Marfleet to 11,473 in Pickering. No doubt my hon. Friend, if he has the opportunity, will explain how this has come about.
The biggest howler of all relates to the electoral divisions which are proposed for the Cottingham area of the borough of Beverley where two electoral divisions are specified, namely, Cottingham North and Cottingham South, which are in 1984 expected to have 10,725 and 6,167 electors respectively. That major disparity between adjacent wards has come about apparently because on some relevant map which was used in the drawing up of the proposals polling districts were wrongly numbered, with the result that over 2,000 electors were included in Cottingham North when it was thought that they were being included in Cottingham South. That in itself should be sufficient grounds for the Home Secretary to have considerable disquiet about the order and to consider revoking it.
In the light of all these discrepancies in terms of the procedure, the nomenclature, the geographical and social composition of the electoral divisions, and especially the numerical considerations, this order really is a curate's egg. In my view, the discrepancies have occurred because the whole procedure has been rushed through by the county council itself, by the Local Government Boundary Commission which held no local public meeting on the proposals, and by Home Office Ministers so that they would be in a position to implement the changes at the elections in May of this year.
When the Home Secretary made the order, the electoral registers were already being printed. The registers for Boothferry borough, of which I have one part here, are marked on the front with the names of the old county electoral divisions which have existed since 1973. That point, which I know is covered in the order, shows the eleventh hour timing of the Home Secretary's action.
All told, the difficulties which I have described mean that the Minister of State needs to think again about the order and especially to take the advice of the Attorney-General about some of the legal aspects. Unless the order is changed, the difficulties that I have described could persist for 15 years.
I appreciate that the Minister may be unable to tell the House tonight what he will do about the order, but, in view of the very short timetable before the county council elections in May, I request that he should let me know within the next fortnight the outcome of his further consideration of the points that I have made. As far as I am aware, the only way in which a new order can be made to iron out these difficulties is for the present order to be revoked and replaced by a new one or for the Home


Secretary to call for a fresh report from the Boundary Commission. It seems to me that one of those two courses must now be taken.

Mr. James Johnson: I gladly avail myself of this chance to punctuate the eloquent case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall).
The Minister saw a deputation of Humberside Members of Parliament. Obviously he could not give us an answer then, but we may get one tonight; I do not know. At that time we told him that in the city there was vehement opposition to this matter. Now it has vastly increased at all levels. The feeling is that the Tory county council is blatantly gerrymandering. There is no doubt in people's minds that the new boundaries will tilt the odds in favour of Conservative candidates.
The Minister knows that I based the Hull case on two issues. The first concerned two maps that had been before the civic and parliamentary sub-committee of Hull city council. One was a detailed map of 7 December 1979. That was put before my colleagues on the city council and accepted Without amendment. We expected that to be the map used in the final submission, but it was later found not to have been the map that was used. An amended map had been submitted without the authority of the Hull district council. The other map came to the county council after the special committee had made its final decision. It is fair to assume that our colleagues at local level would not have passed the second map, as they had already passed the first map that was not used.
The second issue concerned the change in housing policy, which tilted all the figures given by my hon. Friend. The county council's policy was fundamentally changed at the beginning of 1980, when the city fathers decided to abandon all council house building east of the River Hull. There will therefore be a progessive mutilation of the figures between now and 1984. Six of our city wards will be out of balance. Those wards, already mentioned by my hon. Friend, are Marfleet, West Bransholme and East Bransholme, St. Andrews, Pickering, Newington and, last of all, Cottingham.
The Hull Daily Mail, which is never helpful to the Labour Party, said:
A second glaring error has been discovered in the Humberside boundary review recently approved by Home Secretary Mr. William Whitelaw.
I warn the Minister, or, rather. I caution him, that he should look at all these matters very carefully because of the high feeling now mounting within the city.

The Minister of State, Home office (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) for giving me this opportunity to dispel any misconceptions which some of the residents of the county of Humberside in general and of the city of Kingston upon Hull in particular may have about the reasons why my right hon. Friend made an order giving effect to the Local Government Boundary Commission's final proposals for new electoral arrangements for the county in full at the elections in May. Much as we all respect his knowledge of electoral matters, however, I must rebut the suggestion that my right hon. Friend acted improperly in making such

an order or failed to give due consideration to all the representations which he received against the commission's proposals.
The hon. Member for Goole referred to the meeting which he had with me, when I was glad to listen to the representations that were made. I shall come to the consequences which would flow from the elections in May 1981 being fought on the old boundaries, and the over-representation on the county council that would have resulted in the opinion of the Boundary Commission as expressed in the report.

Mr. John Prescott: It is arranged for a Tory county council victory: it is a fix.

Mr. Mayhew: I understand that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, east (Mr. Prescott), who intervened from a sedentary position, may wish to see the elections in May 1981 for the whole county council fought upon an electoral register that is grossly disproportionate to the overall distribution of the electorate. I understand that he has partisan reasons for wishing to see that, but, as he will know, the Local Government Boundary Commission is totally independent of this or any Government, and rightly so. My right hon. Friend must satisfy himself that the commission, in making its report and recommendation, has acted within the criteria laid down by the statute. That is his function, and he has no other.
The hon. Members for Goole and Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) have encroached fairly substantially on my time, so I may not have an opportunity to comment on all the points which I should like to comment upon. The hon. Member for Goole complained about the rejection of his alternative proposals for new electoral divisions in the borough of Boothferry. He fully explained those proposals to me when he came to see me, and I listened with care to what he had to say. The proposals were carefully compared with the commission's proposals for the area, but were found to offer no clear advantage over the latter, which seemed to be generally acceptable to the local residents. They also provoked strong objection from the local borough council.
The hon. Member did not refer to that tonight. He said that there were numerical disparities. Four of his proposed divisions achieved broadly similar standards of representation to the commission's proposal, but one division with an electorate and entitlement of 10,443, on 1984 electoral forecasts, would have had a significantly poorer standard of representation than that provided by all the commission's proposed divisions for the borough.
The hon. Member's scheme has not had the benefit of scrutiny by the commission or by local interests. His claim that it reflects local ties has not been more closely tested. It was objected to by the local council.
I listened with interest to what the hon. Member said about the correction paper and the six weeks point. I shall consider carefully what he has said. He did not raise that point with me before. I shall see what consequences flow from it. However, he cannot expect me to deal with a point tonight which has not been raised before.
I also listened with interest to what the hon. Member said about my right hon. Friend's decision to implement the commission's proposal in full, after our attention had been drawn to the possible effect of a planning decision taken by Kingston upon Hull city council in March 1980 on the forecast electorates on which the commission's


proposals for new electoral divisions in the city had been based. Before giving details of the reasons for that decision, it may be helpful if I remind the House of the respective roles of the commission and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in providing new county electoral arrangements.
The Local Government Boundary Commission is currently engaged in a review of the existing electoral arrangements for all the English counties which it is obliged to carry out under schedule 9 to the Local Government Act 1972. Its practice in such matters is to give notice of its intention to conduct a review of a particular county and to ask the appropriate county council to prepare a draft scheme for new electoral arrangements.
The scheme is then sent to the commission, which considers it and any related comments before formulating and publishing its own draft proposals. The commission then considers any representations received against those proposals before formulating its final proposals for new electoral arrangements for the county, which it submits to the House Secretary in the form of a written report.
Six weeks must then elapse before the Home Secretary may make an order giving effect to the commission's proposals, which he may implement in full or with modifications. Where he decides on the latter course, he may also direct the commission to conduct a further review of the electoral arrangements and to make revised proposals with respect to those arrangements. The statutory delay of six weeks is, of course, intended to enable interested parties to make representations against the commission's final proposals to the Home Secretary, who takes them into account before deciding whether to implement them in full or with modifications.
In reaching his decision, the Home Secretary is obliged, and so is the commission, to comply so far as is reasonably practicable with the rules set out in schedule 11 to the 1972 Act. These provide that the number of local government electors shall be, as nearly as may be, the same in every electoral division of the county having regard to any change in the number or distribution of local government electors of the county likely to take place within the period of five years immediately following the consideration of the county electoral arrangements.
I should add that my right hon. Friend also attaches great weight to the views of the commission in considering what final form the new electoral arrangements for a principal area should take, and that he is generally reluctant to modify its final proposals unless he is satisfied that there are very strong grounds for doing so. This is because the commission is an independent body with considerable experience in dealing with such matters which quite properly takes pride in its integrity, and I hope that the hon. Member will agree with my right hon. Friend that the commission and its staff are to be congratulated on the way in which they perform their difficult and frequently contentious task without showing favour to any side.
I turn to now to the specific matters raised. The commission announced its intention to conduct a review of the existing electoral arrangements for the county of Humberside in October 1979 and published its draft proposals in July 1980. These were based on a draft scheme submitted by Humberside county council on 12 March 1980, with several modifications, including some

to divisional boundaries within the city of Kingston upon Hull suggested by the local city council. The only representations against those proposals, as they affected Kingston upon Hull, came from the city council, which asked the commission to rename five divisions.
The commission subsequently renamed four divisions in accordance with the city council's wishes before formulating its final proposals for new electoral arrangements for the county, which it submitted to my right hon. Friend on 2 December 1980.
The House will appreciate, therefore, that there was widespread satisfaction in Kingston upon Hull with the commission's proposals for the new electoral divisions within the city. Indeed, it was not until 8 January this year that we received our first and only representations against the commission's final proposals for the new divisions in the city.
These came from the Labour group on the city Council and were actively supported not by the city council but by the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, East, Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) and Kingston upon Hull, West. They urged us to defer implementation of the commission's proposals pending investigation of the possible adverse effect of the decision to postpone house building in the eastern areas of the city taken by the city council. This decision was made only eight days after submission of the county council's draft scheme to the commission on the forecast electorates for 1984 on which the commission's final proposals were based.
I must say that we have always accepted that this planning decision would possibly have some adverse effect on the 1984 forecast electorates for parts of the city. Indeed, it was for that very reason that I instructed officials to investigate the matter as soon as it was brought to my attention, and to ask Humberside county council officials, without prejudice, to see whether new proposals could be prepared for three of the divisions which achieved a more even standard of representation on the basis of 1984 electorates than might otherwise be provided if the commission's proposals were implemented in full, and which were locally acceptable. This course was intended to assist my right hon. Friend in deciding whether it was practicable to modify the commission's proposals to meet the objection which had been raised.
The subsequent scheme submitted by the county council did in fact appear to provide a more even standard of representation on the basis of 1984 electorates for the divisions affected by the planning decision than the commission's proposals. But the meetings which later took place between my officials and representatives of the county Labour group and the civic and parliamentary subcommittee of Kingston upon Hull city council revealed that it was totally unacceptable to them. The former thought that the scheme was only marginally better numerically than the commission's proposals, and both expressed concern over the scope of the suggested modifications and their possible breach of strong local ties.
What also emerged from the meeting with the civic and parliamentary sub-committee, however, was that the city council took grave exception to the possible implementation of these modifications at the stroke of a pen in view of the time and effort which it and other local interests had spent before and during the review in trying to obtain new county electoral divisions which were generally acceptable throughout the city; second, that no member or official of the city council had considered it necessary to inform the


county council or the commission of any possible effect of its planning decision on the 1984 forecast electorates which had already been supplied, because the project had only been postponed and not cancelled and that the house building programme in east Hull had not been abandoned but merely postponed. Indeed, the city council impressed upon my officials that it was its fervent wish to revert to the original building plans so soon as economic conditions or Government policy made it possible to do so.
My right hon. Friend therefore concluded that the proper course in such circumstances was to implement in full the commission's proposals for divisions within the city and the remainder of the county.
We take the view, as apparently did the city council, which said nothing about postponement of the building programme, that the Local Government Act 1972 does not

envisage the commission's proposals being modified at every change of policy by a local authority which takes place after a review has begun. To take any other view would mean that the commission would find it virtually impossible ever to complete its present review of the electoral arrangements for all the English counties.
My right hon. Friend attached importance to the fact, to which the commission drew attention in its report, that the county would otherwise have been over-represented by no fewer than 24 county councillors, 10 of whom would have come from Kingston upon Hull—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-one minutes past Twelve o'clock.